Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBEK SWORN.

Thomas James Stanislaus Harbison, esquire, County of Fermanagh and Tyrone, took the Oath and signed the Roll.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD.

Mr. SHINWELL: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the National Maritime Board has any official connection with his Department; if he is aware that this body is supplying seamen for employment on British ships; that such service is in direct contravention of the Merchant Shipping Act, which provides that only those in possession of a licence from the Department may supply seamen; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): The National Maritime Board is composed exclusively of representatives of employers and employed and is entirely independent of the Board of Trade. I am not aware that the Merchant Shipping Act has been infringed by this body, and it does not appear that any action is required.

Mr. SHINWELL: Have any complaints been received from seafaring men with regard to alleged victimisation; and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware of any complaints having been
Received. If the hon. Member hears of any cases and draws my attention to them, they will be looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

COTTON YARN EXPORTS.

Sir JOHN SIMON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total weight of cotton yarn exported to Germany in the month ending 31st July, 1922; and what was the corresponding figure for the month ending 31st October?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The quantities of cotton yarn of United Kingdom manufacture registered during July and October, 1922, respectively, as exported from this country, consigned to Germany, are shown in the published monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts to have been as follows:





1bs.


July
…
…
4,082,300


October
…
…
3,174,300


I may add that 95 per cent, of this reduction is in respect of counts of 40's and under.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures showing the quantities and values of the exports from the United Kingdom of cotton piece goods and yarn, distinguishing between grey and white unbleached and bleached, bleached and dyed, and manufactures wholly or partly of dyed yarn, for the two periods of 10 months ending 31st October, 1920 and 1922?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Detailed particulars respecting the exports of cotton yarn, piece goods, etc., of the United Kingdom manufacture during the periods specified in the question are shown on pages 122 to 150 of the monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts for October, and I am sending to the hon. Member a marked copy of Part III of these accounts in which these pages are included.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Is there not a considerable reduction in the export of dyed yarns, whereas there is a considerable increase in the export of grey yarns, and does not the same thing apply to cotton piece goods; and will the President of
the Board of Trade take stepe to repeal the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, and remove all restrictions on the import of dyes?

Mr. SPEAKER: There will be an opportunity of discussing that matter this afternoon.

OFFICIAL INFORMATION.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish the official information in his possession purporting to show the benefits of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the information on which he bases his statement that no loss of employment has been caused by that Act?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I propose to deal fully with this matter in the course of the Debate later to-day on an Amendment to the Address.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman now say that, when he made the statement that no one had been thrown out of work through this Act, he was making a partisan statement, not based on official information?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. I was making what I still believe to be an accurate statement.

Captain BENN: Was it based on official information; and, if so, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us the official information?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I understand the object of the Debate which is to follow this afternoon is in order to enable the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other Members of the House to receive that information.

SODIUM HYPOSULPHITE.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the minimum degree of purity of imported sodium hyposulphite above which the chemical is liable, to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Sodium hyposulphite is dutiable when it ie of photographic quality, or of still higher quality. Photographic quality hyposul-
phite is a well-known trade quality, but there is no fixed quantitative standard to which it must conform, and any hyposulphite which would be good delivery against an order for sodium hyposulphite, "photographic quality," is dutiable.

Mr. ROBERTS: Is it the case then that the importer cannot know in advance whether he is liable to the duty and the imposition of the duty depends on the analysis?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Everybody engaged in the trade knows perfectly well what this trade term means.

POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that 80 drums of permanganate of potash, which arrived at the Salford Docks, Manchester, ex steamship "Stad Utrecht," on the 2nd October, 1922, are still held by the Customs pending decision as to liability under the above Act; that repeated requests have been made to the Customs for this matter to be decided, but no reply of a satisfactory nature can be obtained; whether he is aware that the heavy delay in these cases hampers or prevents trade; and will he endeavour to make arrangements at the Customs to have this Act, until it is repealed, carried out in a businesslike manner?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I am informed that the consignment of permanganate of potash referred to in the question was declared on importation to be of commercial quality, and, as such, free of duty. As there was reason to doubt the accuracy of the declaration, tests of representative samples were taken and, as a result, the goods were found to be of "R" quality and liable to Key Industry Duty. Instructions have now been given as to the conditions under which release of the consignment may be obtained.

Mr. ROBERTS: Is it not possible to arrange that these long delays should be avoided?

Mr. BALDWIN: Quite easily. It depends on the quality of the goods.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the analysis laid upon the Table?

Mr. FOOT: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that under the item R potassium permanganate, scheduled in the list of articles liable to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, the Customs are levying the duty on importations of potassium permanganate of commercial quality that is for use for industrial purposes and, in view of the fact that the R quality is only meant to refer to the pure quality, will he instruct the Customs accordingly?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Duty is not charged by the Customs on permanganate of potash unless of R quality. I may remind the hon. Member that if a claim for duty on a specific consignment is disputed on the ground that the goods are not of dutiable quality, it is open to the importer to apply to have the matter referred to a referee under Section 11 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act.

Captain BENN: What does this letter "R" stand for—an English word?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have nothing to do with the Act now.

Mr. FOOT: Has the cost of the reference to which the right hon. Gentleman refers to be borne by the trader who is making the complaint?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that question.

SULPHOCYANIDE.

Mr. FOOT: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, though on the 6th of April last aluminium sulphocyanide, barium sulphocyanide, and copper sulphocyanide were stated to be deleted from the list of articles scheduled as liable to duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, potassium sulphocyanide and sodium sulphocyanide are still retained in the list of scheduled products; and, if so, can he say for what reason the latter two have not been removed from the list and from liability to duty on importation?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The items aluminium sulphocyanide, barium sulphocyanide and copper sulphocyanide were removed from the lists because certain observations made by the referee in his decision in the cream of tartar case indicated that he would probably regard
the three chemicals in question as heavy chemicals. These observations do not apply to potassium sulphocyanide and sodium sulphocyanide, and accordingly the lists were not amended in respect of these two substances.

DUMPING.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many allegations of dumping have been received by his Department in support of applications for Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; how many of these have been investigated by Committees appointed under the Act; and what has been the result of these investigations?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: About 140 trades or branches of trades have communicated with the Board since the coming into force of Part II of the Act in August, 1921, but the majority of these have not progressed beyond the stage of inquiry relating to the formulation of complaints. Fifteen complaints have been referred to Committees for inquiry, and of these five have been the subject of Orders made by the Board of Trade under Part II of the Act; eight have been adversely reported upon by the Committees; and in the two remaining cases the Reports of the Committees have been received and are under consideration.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long they have been under consideration? Would two months be about the period?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, I do not think so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that there has been a General Election and that it was rather difficult, with a change of Government, to avoid some sort of interregnum, but there was no avoidable delay.

Major M. WOOD: Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not answer the question on the Paper as to how many of these complaints have been raised on the ground of dumping? That is the question.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that I have dealt with that completely, but, speaking from memory, I think two cases of dumping in the ordinary sense were referred to I Committees.

Major WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that justifies this Act?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will doubtless have a chance of expressing his opinion on that, but he knows perfectly well that the Act deals with a great many other things.

OIL PRODUCTION.

Mr. HANCOCK: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the oil production of Great Britain, Trinidad, Egypt and Mexico, and cost per ton of production in each case, for the year 1921?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Exact information with regard to the production in Great Britain in 1921 is not available, but it is computed that the total production of crude petroleum was approximately 140,000 tons. The quantity produced in Trinidad was 334,000 tons, in Egypt 190,000 tons, and in Mexico 38,000,000 tons. I regret that I am unable to state the cost of production.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. SHORT: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total volume of imports received from foreign countries during the last 12 months and also the total volume of exports to such foreign countries; and the value, respectively, of such imports and exports?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The value of the trade between the United Kingdom and foreign countries during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1922, was as follows:



£


Imports into the United Kingdom
704,165,000


Exports
449,467,000


Re-oxports
92,700,000


It is not possible to give a figure of total volume.

AUSTRALIAN PRESERVED FRUIT.

Mr. HANNON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government has received repre-
sentations from the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia on the subject of preferential treatment of Australian dried and canned fruit exported from that Dominion to this country; whether the fruit-drying and fruit-canning industries of the Australian Commonwealth present great possibilities of development; and whether favourable consideration will be given to the extension of preferential treatment to these articles?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A communication on this subject was received some time ago from the Australian Government who stated that the industries in question were capable of great development. Australian preserved fruit liable to duty already receives a preference of one-sixth, and His Majesty's Government after careful consideration came to the conclusion that it was not possible to make the substantial increase in the amount of the preference which was suggested by the Australian Government.

DYESTUFFP.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason the Central Import Agency, which had acted as Government agents for the disposal of dyes received from Germany under reparations, closed down; and can he state what profit and loss was made by this agency on the sale of these dyes?

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason the British Dyestuffs Corporation were appointed Government agents for the disposal of dyes received from Germany as reparation; why the notice of such appointment was not issued until well over a month after the appointment had been made; how long the agreement for the agency is for; what remuneration is being paid to the British Dyestuffs-Corporation for their services; and whether he is aware that the trade information they secure from this agency in the matter of consumers is being used for the benefit of their own business connected with the making of British dyes?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will answer these questions together, and as the answer is somewhat long, will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

HON. MEMBERS: Read it.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I shall be glad to do whatever Mr. Speaker may suggest, but I think it conforms to the general convenience of the House, when a large number of questions appear on the Paper, that long answers should be circulated. As a mater of fact, the practice is always carried out by my Department of sending round the answer to the hon. Member who puts the question immediately after Question time.

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. I put a supplementary question to the last question on the Paper, quite plainly, and it was not answered.

Mr. SPEAKER: A Minister cannot be compelled to answer supplementary questions.

Following is the answer:

The British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, were appointed agents for the Board of Trade in respect of the distribution of reparation dyestuffs, as it appeared in all the circumstances a better arrangement than the existing one. The change took effect as from the 1st September, but a Press announcement was deferred until some modifications in the terms of sale of the dyestuffs could be included in it. The agreement with the Corporation is terminable at any time by three months' notice on either side. The Corporation receives a commission of 6J per cent, on the gross turnover plus a further I per cent, for guaranteeing accounts, and this commission covers all charges relating to the importation of the dyestuffs from Germany, storage in the United Kingdom, packing, etc., but the Board have agreed to make a maximum annual grant of £30,0X0 towards the cost of such charges. I am not aware of any foundation for the suggestion that any information obtained by the Corporation in the conduct of the agency is being improperly utilised. The new arrangement has met with the approval both of the Colour Users' Association and dye manufacturers other than the British Dyestuffs Corporation. With regard to the last part of the question by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts), I am not in a position to make any statement, as the company carrying on the agency was paid on a commission basis, which, however, it is proposed to revise, since it is now shown that the original terms as agreed were inadequate.

EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.

Sir J. SIMON: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in reference to the export credits scheme, he cansay in respect of what classes and amounts of goods exported to what countries assistance has been given?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the permission of the House, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

Advances have been made to the amount of £1,750,154 in respect of the export of goods to a considerable number of countries in Europe. The countries in respect of which the largest amounts have been advanced are:





£


Czeeho-Slovakia
…
…
968,010


Roumania
…
…
438,420


Austria
…
…
102,904


Baltic States
…
…
84,875


The goods exported against these advances are of various classes, the principal classes being flax and woollen and worsted yarns and manufactures.

As regards the guarantee part of the scheme, guarantees have been given to the value of £2,119,387 in connection with the export of goods to the British Empire and to numerous other countries. The countries in respect of which the largest amounts have been guaranteed are:






£


Poland
…
…
…
363,771


France
…
…
…
205,576


Portugal
…
…
…
202,993


Belgium
…
…
…
189,542


Italy
…
…
…
183,249


Australia
…
…
…
134,435


The trades principally concerned are cotton yarns and manufactures, machinery, iron and steel manufactures thereof, coal, rubber manufactures.

The above figures relate to credits actually taken up; the amounts sanctioned but not yet taken up are very much larger.

RUSSIAN TIMBER.

Mr. ERSKINE-BOLST: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large consignments of timber of Russian origin have, for some time past, been landed and exposed for
sale in the porta of London, Hull, etc.; that, in many instances, this timber was originally the property of English timber merchants, was seized by the agents of the Soviet Republic, who overprinted the private brands of these firms with the hammer and sickle brand of the Soviet Republic, and was thus sent to the English markets for sale to customers of the timber firms at prices with which it has been almost impossible for the timber merchants to compete; and that, owing to the fact that the timber merchants and their agents have received no compensation whatsoever for the timber seized from them, this competition is prejudicial; and whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter and protect British interests?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the question, though I have no information as to the prices secured for the timber in this country. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, arrangements have been made for recording claims against the Russian Government, and His Majesty's Government will not fail to take all practicable steps to secure an equitable settlement.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Does the course adopted by the Russian Government here differ at all in principle from the policy of His Majesty's Government in dealing with German property in this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, it differs in every possible respect.

Mr. ERSKINE-BOLST: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from English firms, stating their various hardships?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am certainly ready to see anyone at any time, if it can serve any useful purpose, but it is not possible, I think, at the present time to do more than tabulate these claims and press them when the time comes.

Mr. SHINWELL: If there is the sale of timber at very low prices, as is alleged, is it not to the advantage of the building trade in this country?

TRUSTS AND COMBINES.

Major M. WOOD: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the
Government intends to carry out the promise given by its predecessor to re-enact those clauses of the repealed Profiteering Act which dealt with trade rings and combines?

Commander BELLAIRS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the legislation promised by the late Government and the various inquiries which have been held into rings and trusts, the Government will deal with the evil next year; and whether they will consider proposals to compel trusts to trade under a single name and so prevent the device by which a certain dairy company is enabled to trade under over 50 different names, representing firms which once competed with each other but are now completely merged?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Government are not in a position to give any undertaking as to legislation on this matter.

Major WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that he is bound by the pledges given by the last Government, seeing that the majority of the Members of the present Government were Members of the last Government?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not wish to engage in an interesting discussion on the doctrine of successive responsibility, but obviously this is a question that must be considered on its merits. If there is anything involved which would seriously dislocate trade and cause general disturbance without compensating advantages, it is a matter for very careful consideration.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these pledges were given by Conservative Ministers, and that a great many expensive Committees have inquired into it, and is all that evidence to be valueless?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, I do not think their evidence is to be valueless at all, and one of the results, if I remember, of these Committees was that the evil was found to be much smaller than was commonly supposed. But it may well be that it is not a good thing to set up a large Dumber of Committees in the future.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (FOREIGN TAX).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether he is able to state which foreign countries impose a tax upon visiting British commercial travellers; and whether he will consider making representations on this subject?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the countries which impose taxes on British commercial travellers. I do not think, however, that the imposition of these taxes would of itself constitute a ground for representations.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reciprocating or retaliating?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That question was discussed in the House last Session. The difficulty is this: Where there is most favoured nation treatment you cannot adopt what is equivalent to retaliation against one country, unless you apply the same treatment to most of the others, and so lose much more than you gain.

BUSINESS OPENINGS ABROAD (NOTIFICATION).

Mr. DANIEL SOMERVILLE: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether arrangements have been made by his Department to ensure that British manufacturers axe aware at the very earliest moment of all openings in foreign countries for British trade; whether, in the case of need, the facts are telegraphed home for distribution to the manufacturers interested; and whether, in every instance, the support of the Foreign Office is available where desirable to promote the success of British enterprise?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The overseas officers of the Department of Overseas Trade have been instructed to supply the Department at the earliest possible moment with all information obtainable by them in regard to openings in foreign countries for British trade. Arrangements have been made in the Department for the prompt dissemination of this information to British firms. It would be of assistance if all firms desiring to receive such information would enrol on the Department's special register, in order to ensure that the goods and markets in which each firm is interested
are readily on record. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Have the Consular officers abroad been instructed to make inquiries about British trade and are they sufficiently business men to understand?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, Sir; the Consuls are specially instructed to look after commercial interests and to report upon commercial openings, and, in considering promotions in the Consular service, the efficiency of a Consul in his commercial work is always taken into consideration.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is there anything in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests in the Consular service in Russia at the present time?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is a trading mission in Russia which is functioning at the present time.

GERMAN SUBJECTS (SEQUESTRATED PROPERTY).

Mr. MORBL: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount in sterling of private and personal property belonging to German subjects in this country which has been sequestrated, and the amount it is proposed to remit, out of the total, to British-born wives of Germans and to other individuals in special cases?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Assuming that the question refers to the property in the United Kingdom of Germans, wherever resident, the sum of £33,600,000 has already been paid to the Controller of the Clearing Office in respect of realisations, in addition to which reserves in the hands of the Custodian amount to approximately £1,500,000, and a sum of approximately £6,000,000 has been released to non-Germans. Certain further assets are still available for realisation, but it is not possible to state the realisable value. No estimate can be made as to the proportion of this sum which will eventually be released to British-born German women and to other individuals in special cases. Each of such cases is dealt with on its merits by Lord Justice Younger's Committee, and the Committee's recommendations are given effect to by the Custodian.

HUNGARY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Hungarian Government and the municipality of Budapest have not yet admitted to the British administrator of Hungarian property liability for War period interest upon securities issued to British subjects before the War by the. Hungarian Government and the municipality of Budapest; and whether he will request His Majesty's representative at Budapest to take the matter up with the Hungarian authorities so as to render unnecessary litigation under the Treaty of Trianon before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to this question is rather long, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The municipality of Budapest have never contested their general liability for interest accrued due to British nationals up to the date of ratification of the Treaty of Trianon on securities issued by the municipality before the War. They have, on the contrary, admitted a large number of claims in respect of such interest and they are being pressed for an early admission of all the outstanding claims. The position is different as regards the interest on securities issued by the former Hungarian Government. The Hungarian Clearing Office contends that, having regard to the provisions of the Treaty relating to the apportionment of the pre-War debt of the old Hungarian Government between Hungary as at present constituted, and the successor States, the Hungarian Government is not responsible for the whole of the interest accrued due on that debt up to the date of ratification of the Treaty. The British Clearing Office has not accepted this contention, and the matter is still the subject of correspondence with the Hungarian Clearing Office. Should the Hungarian Clearing Office persist in its contention, it will be necessary to refer the matter to the Anglo-Hungarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (IMPERIAL PREFERENCE).

Mr. HANNON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will
consider the desirability of a percentage preference being given to all persons who tender for Government contracts, and who undertake to use British Empire materials and employ British Empire labour; whether his Department will use its influence with public bodies to make similar concessions subject to the same conditions; and whether he is aware that the London County Council already gives a 10 per cent, preference on contracts where British material and British labour are employed?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Board of Trade is not a contracting Department. But I have no doubt that the contracting Departments and public bodies recognise the desirability and importance of giving preference wherever practicable to contractors who undertake to employ British labour and British materials. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not aware that the London County Council has made any general rule of the kind mentioned.

RUSSIAN AND GERMAN SHIPPING (BRITISH PORTS).

Mr. GILBERT: 13 and 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if any Russian vessels, either owned by the Russian Government or by Russian subjects, have entered British home ports during the present year; if so, how many vessels: and what is their total and average tonnage;
(2) the number of German vessels which have entered British home ports during the present year; what is the total tonnage of such vessels; and can he give the average tonnage of these German vessels which are now trading with this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: During the period from 1st January to 27th November of the current year, 31 Russian vessels, of an aggregate net tonnage of 49,522 tons, entered at ports of the United Kingdom. The corresponding figures respecting German vessels are 3,044 and 1,615,606 tons. net. On the basis of these figures the average tonnage of such Russian vessels was 1,600 tons, and of German vessels 530 tons.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

LOCAL RATES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is usual to measure the local rates levied upon mining companies according to the amount of coal or minerals produced, thus acting as a tax on output which must tend to restrict the output; whether under this system a remission of charge follows upon the closing down of any mine, and an increase of charge has to be met if a mine is reopened; and whether he has considered the effect of this system upon trade and unemployment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I have been asked to answer this question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is advised that a mine, like other rateable property, is assessable to local rates upon an estimate of the annual rent which a tenant might be expected to give for it, and the output which may reasonably be anticipated is obviously an important factor in estimating the rent which a tenant would be likely to give. It follows that the closing and subsequent reopening of a mine must affect its rateable value. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider any suggestions which the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have to make.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries, when he will find that this question is correct in stating that the rates are levied on the output, and not on the value of the mines?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I will convey my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that local rates are levied on mining royalties?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: That does not arise.

ACCIDENTS (HAULAGE ROADS).

Mr. JOHN ROBERTSON: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the increased number of fatal and non-fatal accidents in recent
years on the haulage roads of the mines; and whether he intends to take any steps, to ensure greater safety?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): The number of accidents of this kind reported has, I am glad to say, decreased, and not increased, during recent years, but it is still very high, and I am anxious to see it reduced further. Many haulage accidents are attributable every year to forgetfulness and the taking of unnecessary risks, due, in some cases, no doubt, to over-keenneess. I am very hopeful that the safety first campaign in the mining industry, which my Department has been endeavouring to promote, and which now seems to be getting well under way, will, in time, if it is energetically pursued, do a great deal to reduce the number of avoidable accidents in this and other mining operations. I am not so hopeful as to the possibility of bringing about any substantial reduction in the number of haulage accidents by further legislation or administrative action, but the matter is receiving consideration, and I am always glad to receive any definite suggestions.

Mr. ROBERTSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when this question was under discussion in July last year, his predecessor in office, looking at the alarming number of accidents on haulage ways, practically admitted that there would be some inquiry into this matter?

Lieut-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir;
there has been a considerable amount of inquiry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that the best and most efficient means of reducing the number of accidents in mines will be when deputies are paid by the State, and are free to exercise their best judgment in the mines?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a new question, which ought to be put down.

EXPLOSIONS, CUMBERLAND.

Mr. CAPE: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that there have been several colliery explosions in the Cumberland coalfields during recent years, and that the loss of life has been considerable through those explosions;
and will he take steps to appoint a Committee to investigate and report on the causes of such explosions, with a view? of legislation being brought forward to prevent repetition of similar occurrences?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: The facts, are, unfortunately, as stated in the question. As the hon. Member is aware, the study of the causes and methods of prevention of explosions in coal mines is among the most important of the duties of my Department, and has long engaged its constant attention. A stringent code of precautionary Regulations is in force, and is periodically revised in the light of experience and research. Every explosion is the subject of careful investigation; and, while I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion, I doubt whether a further general inquiry into recent explosions in the Cumberland coalfield would add anything to our knowledge.

Mr. HARDIE: What action is taken by the Department when the Mining Regulations are broken, and men are allowed to work among gas?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: That is constantly a matter of investigation and inquiry, and where any allegation of that kind is proved, there are ample powers.

Mr. McENTEE: Are people who are found to be responsible punished?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir, constantly.

Mr. CAPE: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines has not yet given his Report on the Whitehaven Haig Pit explosion inquiry; and will he take steps to see that the Report is circulated at an early date?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir. I will do everything in my power to expedite publication. The Report is now with the printers, and I hope it will be issued this month. The reproduction of the plans, which are an essential part of the Report, is a lengthy process, and it is on this account only that publication is delayed.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are to be any proceedings taken in Whitehaven as a result of the disaster?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I think I must have notice of that question.

WELFARE FUND (BANKING ACCOUNTS).

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the inquiry addressed by his Department to five big banks concerning facilities for the banking accounts in connection with the Miners' Welfare Fund has been interpreted in many localities as meaning that only those banks are approved by the Mines Department for the purpose of this business; and whether he will give instructions that immediate steps should be taken to advise local miners' welfare committees that they are free to open accounts with other banks which provide satisfactory terms?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I was not aware that the circular issued by the Welfare Fund Committee was being interpreted in the sense suggested by the hon. Member, but I am arranging for a further communication to be addressed to the district committees, in order to remove any possible misapprehension.

GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Major M. WOOD: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Customs Department are demanding payment of duty, under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, on packages of no commercial value arriving in this country from Germany; that recently a package of free samples of photographic plates seized by the Customs was only released by the importers naming a fictitious value of the goods and paying the duty thereon; that as the importers are not paying the German firm for these goods they are unable to recover the amount demanded by the Customs; and, if so, whether he will see that the Act which was to obtain money from Germany and not from British firms is not violated in future, and order the refund of the money paid in such cases?

Mr. BALDWIN: The particular instance to which the hon. and gallant Member refers has not been brought to my notice, but I may point out that the German Reparation (Recovery) Act applies generally to all goods, first consigned from Germany to the United Kingdom, and that samples can only be exempted if they comply with the terms of the German Reparation (Recovery) No. 6 Order of 1922, made by the Board of Trade on the recommendation of the Statutory Committee under Section 5 (1) of the Act. That Order confines the exemption to bonâ fide trade samples or patterns of no commercial value for which no payment is made and which are imported in quantities of not more than a single article of any one variety.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

POTATOES (FREIGHTS).

Mr. LAMB: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a temporary reduction of rates for the carriage of potatoes from Scotland to England is again to be granted by the railway companies from 1st December, 1922, to 31st May, 1923; that the English railway companies have refused to grant similar concessions in favour of English producers for potatoes consigned to southern counties, which are large consuming areas; and whether he proposes to take any action with a view to averting the unfair competition which must result?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative, and as regards the second part, although the Minister has now no power of directing the railway companies as to their charges, I am communicating with them, and will advise the hon. Member of the result.

DERWENT VALLEY RAILWAY.

Mr. C. WHITE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the arrangements he is making with the railway companies to forward the construction and extension of railways, steps can be taken to push forward the construction of the Derwent Valley, Calver and Grindleford Railway, which was originally included in the North Western, Midland and Scottish
Group in the Railway Bill of 1921; and whether he is aware that by the construction of this railway a great public service would be rendered to the community, a district rich in minerals opened up, which would provide permanent employment for a large number of men, and the construction of which would also find immediate-employment for the large number at present unemployed in that district?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that the Derwent Valley, Calver and Bakewell Railway was originally included in the North Western and Midland Group proposed in the Railways Bill, 1921, but it was struck out in Committee. I am afraid I can give the hon. Member no information with regard to the intentions of the promoters of this scheme.

Mr. WHITE: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that this railway would provide work for the unemployed,, about whom the Government appear to be so anxious?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that this scheme was struck out by a Committee of this House.

MOTOR TAXATION.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the inequitable nature of the present system of motor taxation and to the heavy increase of ouside motor traffic-upon certain county roads, he will consider the advisability of appointing a-Committee to consider the substitution of taxation by motor spirit for the present system and to inquire into the incidence-of taxation as between the Imperial: Exchequer and local authorities?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I have been, asked to answer this question. In reply, to the first part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which: I gave on 30th November to the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division, (Mr. Bonwick), of which I am sending him a copy. The second part raises the-wide question of the relative incidence of imperial and local taxation which cannot be regarded merely from the point of: view of highway administration.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the
matter from the point of view of setting up a Commission or Committee to consider the subject?

Lieut-Colonel ASHLEY: There is a Committee—a Departmental Committee— already sitting which is reviewing the incidence of the tax as imposed from 1st January, and they will in due course report whether or not any modification is desirable.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. SHINWELL: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in his endeavour to find work for the unemployed, he will make representations to the North British Railway Company to double the line from Bo'ness to the main line and to the Caledonian Railway Company to extend the line from Barnton viâ Bo'ness to Grangemouth, both of which extensions will assist the industrial development of the district?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. The question of doubling these lines is one for the consideration of the railway companies respectively concerned, and I am bringing the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the notice of the companies.

RAILWAY CARRIAGES.

Sir HENRY FOREMAN: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether, with the view of providing for skilled labour in the schemes of reproductive work provided and also with the object of increasing the safety of the travelling public, he will suggest to the railway companies that it is now the time to take in hand an extensive scheme of remodelling the present compartment carriages on corridor lines, thereby providing work on a considerable scale either in the direction of reconstructing the railway carriages which exist or in constructing new ones entirely?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. I think that railway companies are alive to the desirability of replacing compartment carriages by corridor carriages so far as this can be done with advantage, and are adopting this policy. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, corridor carriages are not necessarily the most suitable for short distance traffic, and I am not prepared to press the companies in the matter.

Sir H. FOREMAN: Will the Prime Minister make representations in favour of third-class sleeping carriages on the journey to Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE.

BRITISH MINISTER (WITHDRAWAL).

Commander BELLAIRS: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any other country besides Great Britain has withdrawn the representative Minister from Athens; and, if so, will he specify the names of these countries?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am not aware that any but the British Minister has been withdrawn. The Italian Minister is actually attending the Conference at Lausanne, but the Italian Chargé d'Affaires at Athens has been instructed to refrain from all relations with the Greek Government.

Mr. C. BUXTON: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to an allegation in the Press that before the British Minister was withdrawn, and after the arrest of M. Gournaris, a representative of the British Legation demanded from the Greek authorities the return of certain documents, said to be correspondence between M. Gournaris and the British Legation, which had been seized at his house?

Mr. SPEAKER: A question of that kind should be put on the Notice Paper.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the British Minister has been withdrawn from Athens, the Government considers it advisable, as a further protest against the action of the Greek Government, to with draw also the British naval and military missions in Athens?

Mr. McNEILL: The question of the withdrawal of the British naval mission is still under consideration. There is no British military mission at Athens.

Captain BERKELEY: Does the withdrawal of this mission signify a rupture of diplomatic relations, or merely a suspension of diplomatic relations?

Mr. McNEILL: As I have already told the House, the question of the withdrawal of the mission has not been decided. It is under consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that the Consulate Service is still functioning in Greece, and will continue to do so?

Mr. McNEILL: As far as I am aware, that is so.

Commander BELLAIRS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the decision to withdraw our Minister from Athens was taken in accordance with the policy of common action with our European Allies; and, if so, whether the French and Italian Ministers have now been withdrawn?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on the 30th November. In regard to the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply already given to my hon. and gallant Friend by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the reinstatement of our representative in Greece after the General Election there?

The PRIME MINISTER: This matter will be considered when the time comes.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is not the withdrawal of our Minister from Athens a vote of censure on the Greek Government?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 56.
asked the Prime Minister, whether the instruction to Mr. Lindley to threaten the breaking off of relations with Greece was sent as a result of a Cabinet decision or was part of the normal routine of the Foreign Office; and what were the special reasons which induced such action?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on 30th November to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But I did not get an answer on that date. The question I put on the Paper is as to whether the
instruction sent to Mr. Lindley was the result of a Cabinet decision, or by the Foreign Office without such decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been long enough a Member of the House to know that the action of the Government is a corporate responsibility. I might say now, that this was before the Cabinet and it was a Cabinet decision. But we cannot always give an answer of that kind at the time.

BRITISH POLICY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether any influence, direct or indirect, has been brought to bear by His Majesty's Government upon the Government, Provisional Government, or Revolutionary Government of Greece to prevent a Republic being set up or to retain the present dynasty upon the throne Of Greece; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of possible changes in the system of government in Greece?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. As regards the second part, this is hypothetical and I am not in a position to reply to it.

Mr. LAMBERT: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether any evidence exists in any Government Department, or whether he has knowledge, that any British Minister gave any encouragement to the Greeks to pursue a policy in Asia Minor which led to their defeat and for which Greek Ministers have been shot?

The PRIME MINISTER: The policy or policies which led to the defeat of the Greek Army are very obscure and controversial, and it is impossible to deal with it by question and answer.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Prime Minister give a definite answer to the definite question—whether any British Minister gave any encouragement to the Greeks to pursue a policy in Asia Minor which led to their defeat and for which Greek Ministers have been shot?

The PRIME MINISTER: In so far as this is a definite question, I have no knowledge of anything of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, except what has appeared in public statements.

Mr. LAMBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries in any Government Department?

The PRIME MINISTER: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that we are going to go back through all the files for some years in order to find out something which is quite indefinite?

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: We do not know exactly what papers.

Mr. W. THORNE: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Members of the late Government gave any encouragement in any way to the Greek Government to pursue their policy of aggression before the retreat of the Greek Army; and if he will take action in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing beyond what was contained in the public statements which have been made from time to time.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of newspapers have recently definitely stated that the late Government backed up the Greeks in their policy?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is no use referring to possible papers until we know what those papers are.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated in the Press that a certain packet of papers was asked for by the British representative in Athens, and will he publish those papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: But did we get them?

Captain BENN: Yes, I understand that we did get them.

Mr. T. SHAW: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the Press report that the ex-Prime Minister has stated that Greeks had been sent into Turkey and that the present Prime Minister was one of those equally responsible with the other members of the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is the first I have heard of it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 75.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention
has been called to the publication of a despatch from M. Venizelos to the Greek Foreign Minister, dated London, 15th June, 1920, in which the former is made to remind the British Prime Minister that the Greek morale was shaken and the Government did not dare to call up the reserve classes, but he thought that when the Greek people knew of the favourable arrangements of the British Premier it would agree to make the necessary military effort; and will he state the nature of the favourable arrangements alluded to in this despatch?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have been unable to obtain the text of the despatch which M. Venizelos is stated to have sent to his Government on 15th June, 1920, and as we have no knowledge of the despatch I cannot make any statement about it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not a fact that documents have been published showing that the Greek advance was encouraged by the late British Prime Minister, and is that right hon. Gentleman therefore not responsible?

SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when it is the intention of the Government to re-introduce the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Bill?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. I hope that it will be possible to reintroduce this Bill next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any figures showing the amount of unemployment among agricultural workers at the present time, and distinguishing between the several corn-growing counties?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. No exact figures are available of the amount of unemployment among agricultural workers either in the country generally or in particular counties. Such
information as the Ministry possesses, which is based on the general impression of competent observers, does not suggest that there is any abnormal unemployment among regular agricultural workers, but, on the other hand, there is a considerable amount of unemployment in rural districts mainly among unskilled and casual labourers, who in normal times are occasionally and temporarily employed on the land.

TUBE EXTENSIONS (NORTH LONDON).

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 76.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment has considered the suggested extension northwards of the Tube from Finsbury Park as a means of finding useful employment for a very large number of the unemployed in the northern metropolitan area, besides relieving the serious traffic congestion at Finsbury Park; and, if not, will the Committee do so?

Lieut.-Colonel W. ASHLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. So far as I am aware, no detailed scheme for such an extension has been prepared, and the matter has not been before the Committee on Unemployment. As the hon. Member is aware, considerable extensions and reconstructions are in progress on the London electric railways, and notice has been given of Bills to authorise further extensions. The companies concerned, however, have not included this scheme, and I am not prepared to press them to do so.

Captain Viscount EDNAM: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the discomfort and inconvenience which is caused to a large number of residents in suburban North London who travel to and from the City from day to day, and is he aware that from recent statements in the Press—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord is giving information.

WORKHOUSE INMATES, LONDON (NOTICE TO LEAVE).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the fact that certain Metropolitan Boards of Guardians have given a number of unemployed men resident in workhouses, and other institutions under their charge,
notice to leave, these notices to expire almost immediately; and whether he is aware that at least 90 per cent, of these men form part of the living wall which divided the British people from their enemies during the late War; that their presence in London is entirely due to their desire to lay their grievances before the Prime Minister and the House of Commons; also that all of them are home-loss and penniless and in many cases are very badly clothed and without boots, except such as are badly in need of repair; and whether, in order to avoid the inevitable hardship and suffering and possible disorder which may follow this action of the guardians, the Minister of Health will exercise the authority vested in him by Statute and issue an Order instructing the guardians concerned to relieve these- men according to law until such time as their place of settlement is determined and their removal to such place of settlement has either been agreed upon or ordered by a Court of law?

Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW (for the Minister of Health): My right hon. Friend is aware that in certain cases men have received notices of their discharge from Poor Law institutions in London. The guardians are required by law to relieve destitute persons within their union, but the manner in which relief is to be given is within the discretion of the guardians, and my right hon. Friend has no authority to issue any Order purporting to interfere with such discretion.

Mr. LANSBURY: The question does not refer to the method by which relief shall be given, but asks that relief shall be given. The question of how it shall be given is not raised in the question. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Poor Law does not vest in the Minister of Health authority to see that boards of guardians relieve people within their union who are destitute, and, as these men are destitute, I want to know by what authority do the guardians turn them out of the institution?

Viscountess ASTOR: Cannot the Government do something to get these poor misguided men home, and let it be a lesson to those who brought them here?

Mr. McENTEE: Did not the Prime Minister bring them here?

Sir M. BARLOW: May I say, in answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite—and no one can, I suppose, claim to be more familiar with the Poor Law than he— that surely he must be aware of the fact that the Minister of Health is forbidden by law to interfere with the discretion of the guardians in cases like this?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry I am not allowed to argue this matter, but the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: Is he not aware of the fact that, according to the law, if a board of guardians does not do its duty, then the Minister of Health has authority to compel them to do it?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am perfectly aware of that. If I may say so, my hon. Friend is rather purposely evading the point. He suggests that the Minister of Health shall interfere, as I understand it, with the discretion of the guardians in particular cases. By law he is expressly forbidden to do that.

Mr. LANSBURY: As the right hon. Gentleman seems unable to give a satisfactory answer, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of certain boards of guardians in refusing to continue public assistance to a large number of unemployed men who are at present charger able to the Poor Law according to Act of Parliament, and the refusal of the Minister of Health to take such action as would prevent the hardship and suffering, and possibly public disorder, that this action of boards of guardians may involve."

Mr. SPEAKER: On the information before me, this is not a question which can come under Standing Order No. 10. It is clear that the guardians, in the first place, have the responsibility. That has been stated and admitted, and a question under the Standing Order can only be raised in regard to a matter of Government responsibility.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I very respectfully ask how I can raise the question of the starvation of those men and the responsibility of the Minister of Health,
who is at the head of the Poor Law in this country, and who has tremendous powers over boards of guardians about which there can be no dispute on the other side of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I take it that, if a board of guardians are not carrying out the law, they can be dealt with by the Courts of the Realm.

Mr. W. THORNE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, can he tell the House, in the event of all the Metropolitan boards of guardians turning out all these men whom they have under their charge, and putting them on the streets, since they have no money at all to get them back to their homes, what does he intend to do?

Sir M. BARLOW: That is a hypothetical question with which it is rather difficult to deal.

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Sir M. BARLOW: We have all of us great sympathy with these men—

Mr. McENTEE: They cannot live on sympathy. They want food, not sympathy.

Sir M. BARLOW: My hon. Friend's question is based on the supposition that certain boards of guardians do certain things. That is a hypothetical suggestion, but I say frankly, in spite of dissent on the other side, that there is real sympathy in all quarters of the House with these men. What I would suggest, if it meets with the approval of the House, is that we undertake to make inquiry into the circumstances, and, if the question is put down again to-morrow or next day, I shall be glad to give the best answer in my power in view of the further suggestions that have been made.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the responsibility for seeing that boards of guardians carry out their duties is vested in the Minister of Health, and that, if a board of guardians fails to carry out its duty, then the responsibility must rest upon a Government Department; and does not that, therefore, bring the Motion of the hon. Member for Bow (Mr. Lansbury) within the Standing Order?

Mr. LANSBURY: The whole point is that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who is answering. I am certain that if the Minister of Health had been here he could not possibly have answered as the right hon. Gentleman has done. The Minister of Health continually issues Orders to boards of guardians instructing them what to do, and those Orders we have to carry out. How it can be said that the Minister is not responsible, and his conduct cannot be called in question, is to me quite hopeless. [Interruption.] A number of these men are in London, and there is nowhere for them to go. If they break windows, you will be the first to say that they ought not to do so, but you are driving them to it.

Captain ELLIOT: Is it not the case that there is a misunderstanding between the Minister and the hon. Member? The hon. Member has put a question asking whether it is proposed to discontinue the relief that is being given to these men, and the right hon. Gentleman has replied that it is in the power of the guardians to give relief in various alternative forms, but he did not answer the specific point raised by the hon. Member, which was whether boards of guardians have the power to discontinue relief. Is it not a case of misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman, who is answering for another Department, and the hon. Member for Bow?

Sir M. BARLOW: The matter is much too serious a one to have any misunderstanding about. I have already suggested, and I hope the suggestion meets with the approval of the House, that, in view of this possible misunderstanding, my hon. Friend should put his question down again to-morrow or next day. Meanwhile, the facts shall be inquired into, and I hope to give him an answer that will be satisfactory to him.

Mr. BROAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 160 of these men are to be turned out from Edmonton oh Wednesday?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

DEVELOPMENT FUND.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how the sum of
£850,000, placed in the hands of the Development Commissioners under the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, for the purpose of developing agriculture, has been expended?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. The fund to which the hon. Member refers will, as at present arranged, be expended over a period of not less than five years from the 1st April last. It is estimated that during the current year, approximately, £140,000 will be spent from the fund, and next year, approximately, £275,000. The purposes to which the money is being devoted are, in general, schemes of agricultural education and research. The programme on which the Ministry of Agriculture is working includes schemes for such purposes as the improvement and extension of the accommodation at research institutes and agricultural colleges; increases of staff and the development of the work of existing re-search institutes, the establishment in one or two cases of new centres of research, such as a Professorship of Animal Diseases at Cambridge; and the establishment of a system of scholarships for the sons and daughters of agricultural workmen and others, as directed by the Act constituting the fund. If the hon. Member would like detailed information concerning any scheme or class of schemes in which he is particularly interested, and will communicate with me, I shall be happy to furnish it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Where does the accumulated unexpended portion of this money go to—back to the Fund or is it kept in the hands of the Commissioners?

Major BARNSTON: I could not answer that off-hand.

RURAL INDUSTRIES INTELLIGENCE BUREAU.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in regard to the revival of rural industries; and what further steps are being taken in connection therewith?

Major BARNSTON: The problem of the revival and development of rural industries is now being dealt with by the Rural Industries Intelligence Bureau, which was
set up some time ago under a Trust Deed and is supported out of public funds. I am sending the hon. Member some particulars with regard to the functions of this body, from which it will be seen that the Committee of the Bureau comprises representatives of this Ministry and other Ministries interested in the subject. There are various other institutions, such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes, who are also dealing with this subject as part of their general activities.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will Papers be laid showing whether the officers of the Rural Industries Bureau are whole-time officers paid by the State, or whether they split their time between the bureau and the co-operative societies?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

The particulars referred to are as follow:

RURAL INDUSTRIES INTELLIGENCE BUREAU.

The Treasury, on the recommendation of the Development Commissioners, have made a grant towards the establishment of a Rural Industries Intelligence Bureau, whose object it is to provide skilled advice to all who are concerned in the promotion and extension of these industries.

The Bureau has been set up under a trust deed, and the following have been appointed trustees by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries:

Sir Douglas Newton, K.B.E., M.P.
Sir Basil Mayhew, K.B.E., F.C.A.
Sir Charles McLeod.
Major-General Sir Gerard M. Heath, K.C.M.G., C.B., D.S.O.
The Hon. Edward G. Strutt, C.H.
The trustees in the exercise of their authority have appointed a committee, of which they will themselves be members, to conduct the business of the Bureau. The committee has as its chairman the right hon. Lord Ernie, and is composed of the trustees in association with representatives from the Board of Trade, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Ministry of Labour, Board of Education, Board of
Agriculture for Scotland, Ministry of Pensions, the Forestry Commission, the Labour party, the Federation of Women's Institutes, the British Legion and other interested associations.

The Bureau is thus controlled by a body equally representative of social interests and of technical and business experience. It is essentially an organisation set up for practical purposes.

The primary purpose of the Bureau is to offer skilled advice to those who are engaged in, or contemplate, the establishment of commercially profitable rural industries. The Bureau will be prepared to advise generally and more especially on

(a) The revival and extension of rural industries and crafts which, with proper organisation and improved methods, can be rendered sound and profitable.
(b) The establishment of new industries and of industries which up to now have not been carried on in this country, always provided that such activities are suitable to rural districts and that handicraft forms the chief element in them and that they can be set up on an economic and reasonably permanent basis, yielding a fair reward to the worker.
(c) Standard of workmanship, price, economical production, the use of waste material, training in various crafts and in such subjects as, for instance, dyeing, leather tooling, polishing, and in the use of the latest mechanical aids, etc.
(d) Commercial subjects, such as marketing, foreign competition and the importance of protective measures such as trade marks and registered designs. Advice will also be given as to the best means of developing a simple and efficient organisation on co-operative lines.
Briefly, therefore, the Bureau is prepared to give all possible assistance in the directions indicated above to the isolated handicraftsmen and to rural groups of workers direct, or through their own Associations, and no effort will be spared to obtain information and to give assistance of practical value without delay.

Communications should be addressed to

The Secretary,

Rural Industries Intelligence Bureau,

258–262, Westminster Bridge Road,

London, S.E.I.

The work of the Intelligence Bureau would, however, be, incomplete unless it were supplemented by a central agency providing the workers with materials and deposing of their goods. It is the lack of adequate trading facilities, as well as of authentic information, that has prevented the natural development of these small industries. In conjunction with the Bureau, therefore, a co-operative trading society, known as the Country Industries Co-operative Society, Limited, has been registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and is situated also at 258–262, Westminster Bridge Road, S.E.I, where it has large showroom and warehouse accommodation.

The Development Commissioners are debarred by the terms of their Act from recommending a grant to an association trading for profit; accordingly, the capital has been raised from private quarters and the trading society will be entirely independent of Government control, and a business concern pure and simple.

A strong governing body has been appointed, composed of Sir Ernest J. P. Benn, Baronet, C.B.E.; Sir Charles McLeod; Sir Basil Mayhew, K.B.E., F.C.A.; Lady Denraan; Mr. Vaughan Nash, C.B., C.V.O.; Mr. J. J. Dent, C.M.G.; Mr. T. L. Coltman.

The functions of the trading society are two-fold—

(a) To supply raw material of every description, or half-finished goods or parts, at wholesale prices to isolated workers or groups engaged in rural industry and handicraft; and also to undertake, where needed, the hiring out of plant and equipment such as looms, sewing-machines, tools, etc.
(b) To sell the articles and the materials made by rural workers and handicraftsmen to the best advantage in markets not always accessible to scattered workers. Anyone wishing to purchase raw material from the trading society will be perfectly at liberty to dis-
1194
pose of the finished goods elsewhere if they choose; similarly, they can, if they wish, obtain their material from some other source, and still employ the trading society to market their goods.

The present moment would appear to be peculiarly favourable to the revival, stabilisation and extension of country crafts and industries. It is common knowledge that the War has served to stimulate country life and activities; cooperative societies, women's institutes, village clubs, and ex-service men's organisations are flourishing and multiplying. There is a greater degree of familiarity with mechanical methods of work, and there is more leisure which could be turned to account if suitable and congenial occupations were forthcoming. The unsettlement and insecurity of the agricultural situation make it all the more important that the possibilities of alternative or supplementary employment should be thoroughly explored and tested without delay.

In reviewing the situation, the Development Commissioners have been particularly impressed by the opportunities which a revival of village industries would offer to many disabled ex-service men. There is still in existence a great training organisation under both Government and voluntary auspices, and it is clear that a large proportion of those undergoing training will never be able to take their place within the ranks of full-time urban industry. For those men occupations are needed which, while compatible with the limitations of their physical powers, will yet be congenal and remunerative and can be carried on either in their own homes or in a small workshop after a short term of special training.

Before adopting the proposals outlined above, the Commissioners submitted them to their Advisory Committee on Rural Industries, of which Lord Ernie is the chairman. The Committee contains representatives of all the Departments concerned with various aspects of the rural problem and with the care of disabled men, and it strongly supported the action proposed.

COUNCILIATION COMMITTEES.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction expressed in reference to the working of the Con-
ciliation Committees, he will reintroduce the Wages Boards so that the decisions thereof may be legally enforced?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend does not admit that there is general dissatisfaction with the working of the Conciliation Committees. During September there were 49 agreements in force, and the number of complaints of non-observance of the agreements was insignificant. Difficulties are being experienced in reaching agreements in several counties at the present time, but my Tight hon. Friend is not without hope that these difficulties will be overcome. In any case, he is not prepared to introduce legislation to re-establish the Wages Board.

Mr. ROYCE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House whether a single one of the alleged agreements have been registered?

Major BARNSTON: I could not do that without notice.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that since the Wages Boards were abolished an enormous reduction in the wages of the agricultural labourers has taken place, and in consequence of the present distribution of wages by the farmers many of the men are worse off than before the War?

Mr. J. JONES: Agreements with Burial Boards!

NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the two new capital ships authorised by Parliament must be laid down under the Washington Agreement by the 31st December, 1922; whether the orders have as yet been given out; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to make a statement on this subject before the House rises.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the opinion of the new House of Commons as to the desirability of spending this sum of money?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are considering it as a Government, but I am afraid I cannot promise what is asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that there will be an opportunity for discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; what I have said does not necessarily mean that.

LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Allied invitation to the Russian Government to send representatives to Lausanne envisages their participation in a consultative capacity; and whether the Russian representatives will be invited to sign the protocols drawn up concerning the particular questions in which Russia is deemed to be interested?

The PRIME MINISTER: Russian delegates have been invited to take part in the discussion about the Straits. The question of the form in which decisions are to be recorded, whether in protocols or otherwise, is for the Conference itself to settle.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the question of Asiatic boundaries comes up, will the discussion be open to the Russians, especially the Armenian question?

The PRIME MINISTER: No: I believe the invitation to the Russians is limited to the question of the Straits.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

RUHR VALLEY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he now has any information regarding the plans of the French Government for the occupation of a portion of the Ruhr Valley and the setting up of a French administration there and in the other occupied areas on the Rhine; and whether His Majesty's Government has been consulted in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that any information received on this matter will be given to this House before we disperse?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is certainly, I think, putting it too broadly; any information which it is possible to give to the House will certainly be given.

Captain BENN: Is not the Government bound by the statement of policy of the late Government that they will not participate in military operations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that the late Government made any such statement. What was said was limited, if I am not mistaken, to a particular proposal. This must not be taken as meaning that I am expressing any opinion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not strengthen the hands; of the Government if the matter were discussed here before the Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry to say that I do not think so.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. LEACH: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has considered any policy which it can place before the meeting of the Allied Premiers to take place in London relative to German indemnities; and whether he will take an opportunity of informing this House before the Conference the policy he proposes in the interests of this country?

Mr. MOREL: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in conferring with the Prime Ministers of France and Italy, he will make it clear that any cancellation of debts must be conditional upon fixing reparation at a moderate and definite figure, the evacuation of the Rhine provinces, and the limitation of all armament by a ratified pact, in order to ensure an enduring peace and enable European civilisation to recover?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is obvious that as I am meeting the Prime Ministers without having had the opportunity of seeing any suggestions which are to be made, I can make no statement at present?

Mr. MOREL: In view of that reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this question on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: Will the Government consider the advisability of urging a withdrawal from the right bank of the Rhine, which is occupied in total disregard of the Treaty of Versailles?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member must realise that it is impossible for me to make any statement in advance on a question of this kind.

IRAQ.

Mr. LAMBERT: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to announce a change of policy which will lead to an early termination of our commitments and consequent expenditure in Iraq?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject, and I do not think that it will be possible to make any statement this Session.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether, from the point of view of relieving unemployment, as well as increasing transport facilities between this country and the Continent, he will take up with France the question of the construction of the Channel Tunnel?

Viscount CURZON: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the prevailing condition of unemployment and the great volume of work which would be provided, both directly and indirectly, he can now state the decision of the Government with respect to the Channel Tunnel?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. No decision has yet been taken, and I am not at present prepared to consider this question.

Viscount CURZON: Has not this question been under consideration for the past three years, and can the right hon. Gentleman say when something is going to be done?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know that it has been under consideration for a very long time, but I do not think the present financial condition of the country warrants it. The amount involved will be very small indeed.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that the money required for the construction of this tunnel was put up entirely by private enterprise?

Mr. WHEATLEY: When the Government is looking for a solution of the unemployment problem, will they take into account the amount of work that could be provided by the construction of a tunnel to New Zealand?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 63 and 64.
asked the Prime Minister (1) what action, if any, the Government propose taking to remove the penalty on thrift imposed on old age pensioners under the present Old Age Pensions Acts;
(2) If the Government will be prepared to allow a free Vote of the House, as did the late Government, on the removal of the anomalies of the present Old Age Pensions Acts, which penalise those who have been thrifty enough to earn an income of, approximately, £50 per year?

The PRIME MINISTER: In present financial circumstances the Government is unable to reopen the settlement embodied in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, and I am therefore unable to adopt the suggestion made in the second question.

Mr. C. BUXTON: Is it not a fact that certain individuals are paying all the expenses?

Mr. R. DAVIES: Is it possible to give instructions by administrative action that the pensions officer shall not take into account goods given by relatives?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that question.

ROYALTY RIGHTS.

Mr. BARKER: 65.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Bedwellty Poor Law Guardians passed a resolution
at a meeting last March, recommending that the Government should take over the rights of royalty owners in the country and utilise the receipts in respect of royalties arising therefrom in relieving boards of guardians of the financial responsibility of relieving distress caused through unemployment; whether he is aware that relief to the unemployed has trebled the poor rate in this area and has overwhelmed the area with debt; and, in view of the Government pledge arising out of the Report of the Coal Commission, will he bring in a Bill on the reassembling of Parliament, next February, to take over the mineral rights of royalty owners and utilise the receipts to relieve local taxation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the resolution referred to and of the heavy expenditure of the Bedwellty Board of Guardians on the relief of distress, but I regret that the suggestion contained in the last part of the question is impracticable.

Mr. BARKER: Did the previous Government give a pledge that they would nationalise royalties?

The PRIME MINISTER: With a view to relieving the rates, any proposal made for the nationalisation of royalties was made on the basis of paying for them. If that be so, there is no way of doing it except by raising the rates.

SCOTTISH OFFICE.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make any statement relative to the appointment of a member of the Government responsible to this House for the administration of the Scottish Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to questions on this subject on Monday last.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: If the Prime Minister cannot find a Secretary for Scotland, will he consider the expediency of giving Scottish Home Rule immediately?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member has rather misunderstood the answer. We have had no difficulty in finding a Secretary for Scotland, and we
have one now. The difficulty we have had is to find a seat for the Lord Advocate, which I hope will soon be overcome.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman put a possible date to the period when he expects to overcome this difficulty?

Mr. SPEAKER: That depends upon other people.

NATIONAL RESOURCES.

Mr. SHORT: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the national resources of the country, the productive capacity of the country and how far it can be increased by scientific methods, the extent to which the country is dependent upon foreign imports, and any other information necessary to show the present financial and productive resources of the nation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that an inquiry of such wide scope could be suitably carried out by a Royal Commission.

GERMANY AND RUSSIA.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to make any statement with regard to the suggestion that a secret military agreement has been entered into between the German Government and the Soviet Government of Russia?

Sir W. DAVISON: 77.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has any information as to a naval and military agreement having been entered into between Germany and the Russian Soviet Government, and to the effect that large numbers of aeroplanes are being manufactured or assembled in Russia to German order; that munitions of war are being manufactured in Russia for Germany under the direct supervision of German officers; and that provision is made in the German Army Estimates for special pay and allowances for such officers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information to confirm the suggestions in these questions.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of looking at the German Estimates, and, if so, is there any provision made for the payment of those officers in Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think not.

MARCONI COMPANY (MR. KELLAWAY).

Mr. HURD: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether, up to the time of his resignation as Postmaster-General six weeks ago, Mr. Kellaway, on behalf of the Government, was in negotiation with the Marconi Company which he has since joined; and whether, in the public interest, it will be made a condition of service under the Crown that no Minister or civil servant should, within a period of five years after resignation, enter the service of any private enterprise with which he had been in negotiation on behalf of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, the facts are, I believe, as stated in Mr. Kellaway's letter which appeared in the Press to-day. I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that transactions are continually passing between the Postmaster-General and the Marconi Company?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it in order for an hon. Member to read supplementary questions?

Mr. HURD: I am not reading them.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have asked the Post Office, and they reply that the facts are as stated in Mr. Kellaway's letter.

Mr. MIDDLETON: Is it not a fact that the late Postmaster-General concluded more than one agreement with the Marconi Company, which resulted in profits to the company and consequent loss to the State?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that is denied in the letter to which I have referred.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Colonel NEWMAN: 74.
asked the Prime Minister whether the committee to consider and make recommendations for the continuance of the Rent Restrictions Act will be re-appointed before the Adjournment; and is he in a position to give the terms of reference?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The Departmental Committee appointed by the late Government is being reconstituted, with the same terms, of reference, namely,
to consider the operation of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest, etc. (Restrictions) Act, and to advise what steps should be taken to continue or amend that Act.

WORN-OUT HORSES (EXPORT).

Mr. GILBERT: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of old horses shipped from this country to Belgium and other continental ports during the present year; and what is the total declared value of such animals?

Major BARNSTON: As the reply is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

16,289 horses, of all ages, have been shipped from this country to continental ports during the present year up to 31st October, after being examined by veterinary inspectors of the Ministry immediately before being shipped and passed as fit to travel and to work. This includes large numbers of carriage and riding horses and Army remounts for

—
1920.
1921.
1922 to 31st Oct.


Number of Horses shipped
…
…

58,689
45,120
16,289






Kilogs.
Kilogs.



Horse Carcases
France
…
…
538,909
1,557,648
Not yet known.


Belgium
…
…
3,884,320
4,817,975



Carcases.
Carcases.





Holland
…
…
1,227
3,666
—

The Ministry also issued a revised Order in December, 1921, prescribing certain stringent requirements with regard to the fitting of vessels for carrying horses, and the arrangements for feeding and watering the animals during transit. The port inspectors go on board the vessels to see that the Order is

foreign Governments. The number of aged horses is not available. According to the Customs returns, the total declared value of 15,200 of these horses (the only figures yet available) is shown as £723,787.

All horses shipped to the Continent of Europe, except special animals accompanied by Jockey Club certificates, are required by the Diseases of Animals Act of 1910, as amended by the Exportation of Horses Act of 1914,to be examined immediately before shipment by veterinary inspectors appointed by the Ministry, and certified by them to be fit to be carried without crueltyandalsoto be capable of being worked without suffering. The arrangements for administering these Acts were entirely overhauled by the Ministry in the spring of 1921, whole-time inspectors of the Ministry being substituted for local practitioners be the officers entrusted with the examination of the animals before shipment. At the same time the traffic was placed under the supervision of one of the senior inspect or so the Ministry devoting his whole time to the work. Since that time it may be confidentlyasserted that no horsehas been allowed to be shipped unless it fulfils the high standard of fitness insisted upon at all the ports of shipment. There have been two important result so this action. The so-called decrepit horse has been entirely eliminated from the traffic, and the trade in live horses, ultimately intended to be slaughtered for food on the Continent, has been replaced to a large extent by the trade in carcases of horses slaughtered on this side. This, is shown by the following figures:—

properly carried out, and voyages are frequently made with the animals by the Ministry's inspectors.

The trade in horses to the Continent is now entirely confined to high-class animals and good working horses. Of the number shipped in 1922, 96 per Cent, were between £20 and £100 per head in value.
In view of the great drop in prices of horses both here and on the Continent during the past 12 months, it may be assumed that all these animals were of a good class. The proposal which has recently been largely advertised to impose a tax of £20 per head on these animals would result in the destruction of this trade, which is a perfectly legitimate one.

INSANITAKY COTTAGES, BANSTEAD.

Mr. BROAD: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether be is aware that on the 23rd February, 1922, the medical officer of health for the Rural District of Epsom reported to the county medical officer of health that certain cottages erected in 1921 on the Sheep and Wells farms, in the parishes of Banstead and Woodmansterne, contained rooms that were unfit for human habitation and asking for immediate attention; that the county medical officer of health for Surrey inspected and agreed; that the rural council medical officer communicated with the county land agent on 27th May, 1922, complaining that nothing had been done to remedy the evils; that on 22nd June this was followed by another letter enclosing copy of a letter from the medical practitioner attributing the illness of his patients to the condition of the houses; and that on the 23rd November, 1922, the medical officer of health for the rural district served notice on the county land agent that four of the cottages were unfit for human habitation; whether the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture has been drawn to the condition of affairs and, if so, when; what action is proposed in view of the financial liability of the Ministry for these land settlement schemes to trace the cause of these defects in new cottages; and whether any and, if so, what action is proposed to be taken to make the cottages habitable?

Major BARNSTON: The attention, of the Ministry has not hitherto been drawn to the action of the medical officer of

health of the rural district of Epsom, but in July of the present year a complaint concerning the dampness of the cottages referred to by the hon. Member was received from the British Legion. Inquiry was then made from the county council, and the Ministry's chief architect inspected several of the cottages, which are of the bungalow type. I am advised that the dampness is due to condensation on the walls of the cottages and that there is no question of penetration of wet from the outside or of the non-provision of proper damp courses. The condition has been somewhat aggravated by the fact that the cottages were nearly all occupied very soon after they were completed. The Ministry is also advised that condensation must of necessity occur on new 9-inch solid walls with smooth internal plaster, and is liable to recur under violent changes of temperature unless special care is taken to keep the rooms thoroughly aired and ventilated. The chief architect of the Ministry also reports that these cottages are excellently built and comfortably planned and that there is no justification for the suggestion that any of them are unfit for habitation. I am also informed that the statements of the medical officer of the rural district have received the attention of the Surrey Small Holdings Sub-Committee and that their efforts are being principally directed to induce the tenants of the cottages to ventilate them regularly as the principal precaution against the recurrence of condensation. The sub-committee referred to is watching the situation closely, and I do not consider that any action on my part is called for.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Proceedings in Committee on Trade Facilities and Loan Guarantee [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 140

Division No. 11]
AYES.
[3.53 p.m.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Banks, Mitchell


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Astor, Viscountess
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Becker, Harry


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bonn, Sir A'. S, (Plymouth, Drake)


Apsley, Lord
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Berry, Sir George


Betterton, Henry B.
Golf, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gould, James C.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Blundell, F. N.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Paget, T. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Brass, Captain w.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George


Brassey, Sir H. Leonard
Hall, Rr-Adml sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Halstead, Major D.
Perring, William George


Brlttain, Sir Harry
Hamilton, Sir Georje C. (Altrincham)
Phllipson, H. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.


Bruford, R,
Harrison, F. C.
Pllditch, Sir Philip


Bruton, Sir James
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbrldge)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Wattord)
Remnant, Sir James


Butcher, Sir John George
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Rhodes, Lieut-Col. J. P.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hllder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hlley, Sir Ernest
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hinds, John
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cassels, J. D.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Cautley, Henry strother
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Cayjer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roger son, Capt. J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roundel), Colonel R. F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchln)
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Houfton, John Plowright
Russell, William (Bolton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Houston, Sir Robert Patterson
Russell-Wells, Sir Sidney


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Cot. C. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hudson, Capt. A.
Sandon, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Hughes, Colling wood
Shakespeare, G. H.


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hurd, Percy A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Sinclair, Sir A.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Singleton, J. E.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Skelton, A. N.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Somerville. Daniel (Barrow-ln-Furn'st)


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Sparkes, H. W.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Spears, Brig-Gen. E. L.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Lord


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Lord C. Crlchton-


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sutcliffe, T.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Locker-Lampson, Com. 0. (Handsw'th)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lorimer, H. D.
Tubbs, S. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Ednam, Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Wallace, Captain E.


Elveden, Viscount
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Erskine. Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wheler, Col. Granville C, H.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Margesson, H. D. R.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Whitla, Sir William


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Willey, Arthur


Ford. Patrick Johnston
Milne, J. S. Wardiaw
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Windsor. Viscount


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Winterton, Earl


Frece, Sir Walter de
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wise, Frederick


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wolmer, Viscount


Furncss, G. J.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Ganionl, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. C. T.
Wood. Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gardiner, James
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gates, Percy
Murchison, C. K.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Attlee, C. R.
Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bonwick, A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barnes, A.
Bowdler, W. A.


Aiqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Batey, Joseph
Broad, F. A.




Brotherton, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rote, Frank H.


Buchanan, G.
Jowett, F. W, (Bradford, East)
Royce, William Stapleton


Buckle, J.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sakiatvala, S.


Burgess, S.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J, M.
Salter, Dr. A.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Kenyon, Barnet
Scrymgeour, E,


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Kirkwood, D.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock).


Calms, John
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Shinwell, Emanuel


Chappie, W. A.
Leach, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clarko, Sir E. C.
Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Linfield, F. C.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cowan, D, M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Snell, Harry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Snowden, Philip


Edmonds, G.
M'Entee, V. L.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Emlyn-Jonos, J. E. (Dorset, IM.)
McLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Falconer, J.
March, S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Foot, Isaac
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Thorne, G, R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Maxton, James
Tillett, Benjamin


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Middleton, G.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Millar, J. D.
Warne, G. H.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morel, E. D.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Sidney


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Hall, P. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mulr, John W.
Weir, L. M.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Westwood, J.


Hancock, John George
Murray, R. (Renlrew, Western)
Wheatley, J.


Harbord, Arthur
Newbold, J. T. W.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Hardle, George D.
Nicol, Robert
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Harney, E. A.
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Whiteley, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, George Harold
Wignall, James


Hay, Captain J, P. (Cathcart)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hayday, Arthur
Parker, H. (Hanley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Phlilipps, Vivian
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hill, A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hillary, A. E.
Pringle, W. M. R.
Wintringham, Margaret


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hogge, James Myles
Riley, Ben



Irving, Dan
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Mr. Lunn and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society." [Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dundee High School." [Dundee High School Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1S99, relating to Glasgow (Tramways, etc.)" [Glasgow (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relatingto Edinburgh Cor-
poration."[Edinburgh Corporation, Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

That they have agreed to,—

Irish Free State Constitution Bill, without Amendment.

Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Bill, with Amendments.

Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scot* land) Act, 1899) to be considered Tomorrow.

Dundee High School Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered Tomorrow.

Glasgow (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], Ordered(under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure(Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered Tomorrow.

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.[Bill 5.]

IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed.[Bill 4.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed.

IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the landing of imported animals in Great Britain and matters connected therewith," presented by Sir ROBERT SANDERS; supported byMr. Ormsby-Gore; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed.[Bill 3.]

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.

[FIFTH DAY.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd November],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Question again proposed.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words
But regret that no mention is made of the repeal of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and of other protective Measures, which are raising prices, hampering trade, and limiting employment.
This Amendment invites the House to review certain recent legislation which was admittedly of a temporary character and to decide whether that legislation— the Safeguarding of Industries Act and other Measures—has not in actual experience worked so badly that those Measures ought now to be brought to an end. In the Debates on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill in the last House of Commons, it was sometimes said by way of criticism that the discussion consisted largely of arguments for and against Free Trade and Protection. So far as I have been able to examine those Debates, I do not think the criticism was justified. At any rate, the question which we raise to-day by this Amendment is not a question which will be discussed in terms of theory, but is a practical question to be determined in the light of actual experience. In the same way, I do not think it is necessary to enter upon the highly debatable question whether or not it is possible for a Free Trader to support the Legislation which has been recently passed. It was supported by many who assured us that their Free Trade belief was not affected, and I am glad that is so,
because it shows quite conclusively that if we can now prove that these Measures are operating badly and against the national interest, there is no reason why that section of opinion in the House should not join in demanding that they be brought to an end.
I must be allowed to say, in passing, that perhaps the best authority as to whether legislation of this sort has a Protectionist effect may be found among the Protectionists themselves, and it is a striking circumstance that, whatever difference of opinion there may be in other parts of the House, nobody who is an avowed Protectionist has ever failed to defend these Measures. Among the members of the present Government are some who have made this claim quite boldly and loudly in the course of the last Parliament. For example, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Amery), who has been a convinced and emphatic supporter of Tariff Reform for many years, used this language about the Safeguarding of Industries Act in the very month, August, 1921, that it reached the Statute Book:
Mr. Joseph's Chamberlain's great policy…is not that what is being done to-day by the Government in the Safeguarding of Industries Act.
Perhaps an even more striking testimony comes from the dying declaration of an organisation which played a great part in its day—the Tariff Reform League. That body took the precaution, which in the circumstances was prudent, of composing its own epitaph before it finally dissolved, and I take this extract from its tombstone. This is what it says as to the reason of its ceasing to be:
By the coming into operation of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, the principles advocated by the Tariff Reform League have received definite expression in the Legislature.
I thoroughly recognise that, in the difficult time of change from war to peace, it may well have seemed to many people who are, convinced Free Traders that some special and temporary arrangements were justified and proper. I do not for a moment throw any doubt upon their good faith, and all I ask is that they should be prepared now to examine the actual working of these Measures and to see whether they correspond with the hopes which were held out. There are three general reflections which I should like to submit before we examine the
actual legislation and the way it works. The first is this: Just as it was claimed, and truly claimed, in the course of the Debate on unemployment that the fundamental object of everybody in the House in all quarters was the same, so I would like to claim on behalf of this subject that, however we may differ, we are all agreed in the common desire to promote legislation which will benefit the trade of the country as a whole. That is true of all of us. The second point I want to make by way of introduction is this: You cannot judge whether this legislation really benefits trade as a whole by producing evidence that some corner of industry is benefited, and still less by producing the declaration of some privileged manufacturers who announce that, without such Measures, their workpeople would be threatened with unemployment. The third observation I wish to make is that, in the last resort, the practical test which has to be applied is quite, as much a test of efficient administration as of correct economic theory. I will not go so far as the poet who declared:
For forms of government let fools contest.
What e'er is best administered is best.
But it is true of these subjects which touch the trade of the country that, if the working out of a Measure can be shown to involve so much interference with the legitimate objects of British trade, so much embarrassment to those who are promoting the strength of the country by carrying on British commerce, and if it can be shown that these results cannot be avoided, whatever may be the theoretical argument for the rosy hopes which may have been formed on the legislation itself, the legislation stands condemned, because it does not satisfy the test of efficient and practical administration.
I think this proposition will not be disputed, and with this proposition in mind J invite, the House to consider how the Safeguarding of Industries Act and one or two cognate Measures are, in fact, operating. I propose to deal mainly with the Act itself, but I desire first to point out that it is really only the last step in a series of changes, each of them justified by those who supported them as being required in this interval between war and peace and that all those changes, though very innocent in appearance, have, as a total result, this con-
sequence, that they seriously interfere with the free right of British merchants to purchase what they need in the market that treats them best. I take as the earliest example what are known as the McKenna duties, and I may remind the Prime Minister that when the McKenna duties—certain duties put upon articles of bulk and luxury in the middle of the War in order to save shipping space and to discourage undesirable spending—were presented to this House in the time of the first Coalition Government, the present Prime Minister made a speech in which he sought to reassure those who feared that the duties might continue in some form or other after the War was over. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Sir A Mond) made a speech on that occasion and put forward arguments against those duties and he is justified in saying that on that occasion he did not get very much support. One of the reasons why he did not get much support was because of the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister. He said:
The only ground on which I think I can see any question of opposition to these duties from the point of view of the fiscal controversy is the idea that they will lead to something else. Duties of this kind would never be continued under any circumstances when the War was over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th September, 1915; col. 913, Vol. 74.]

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I think the rest of the speech will show that I was referring to "duties of this magnitude," and of course at that time I had in my mind War conditions.

Sir J. SIMON: The duties are exactly of the same magnitude to-day.

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I was alluding to the fear that they would lead to something else. That means a general tariff.

Sir J. SIMON: Then if I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he means that when he said he was afraid of opposition on the ground that they might lead to something else, his assurance that duties of this kind would never be continued under any circumstances when the War was over really meant that there was no danger of a general tariff. I am not quite sure that everyone in the House of Commons so understood it, but I am not seeking to make any quarrel about it. I am only pointing out that even in that
early instance in point of fact a system has been built up which in that particular has continued after the War. A second example was the institution of preference in regard to other duties, and there the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) claimed with pardonable pride in this House that his distinguished father had fought for this object, for many years, and proceeded to say that the day for which his father had fought had now come. I am not arguing for the moment whether it is right or wrong. I am only pointing out that in the result there has been not one, but a series of instances, all pointing in the same direction, because they all tend to restrict the free, equal purchase of commodities in the markets which the merchants of our country find the best for their purpose. There then came the Bill known as the Exports and Imports (Regulation) Bill. I remember the then President of the Board of Trade, Sir Auckland Geddes, used to boast that the Bill was all prepared, every Clause of it, every line of it, and was locked up in a box, and that at a particular moment most suitable for the occasion the box would be opened, and British trade would be duly encouraged. That Bill failed to reach the Statute Book, because it was found to threaten such difficulties in administration that the Government thought it better to drop it.
Then came the Dyestuffs Act. There are Members of this House—I hope we may hear one or two of them to-day— who can speak with very great first-hand knowledge of the way in which the Dye-stuffs Act is really operating. It really has become in some respects a model for the working of the Safeguarding of Industries Act itself. The Dyestuffs Act works in this way. You set up under the Act an Advisory Committee. On the advice of that Committee the Board of Trade decides its action. It certainly was contemplated at the time the Act was introduced that the Committee would only refuse a licence to import a dye if that identical dye could be got of equal quality and of equal convenience from sources at home. That is not the way the Dyestuffs Consultative Committee is operating the Act at all. I call attention to these two circumstances, because they are very serious administrative circum-
stances. First of all, the whole scheme of the Dyestuffs Act is that you should prohibit absolutely the import of foreign dyes, and then that you should modify your absolute prohibition by a system of personal and individual licence. I submit in the first place—and I think the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me because he said something like it in the House— that is of all systems the worst way in which to put restrictions on trade. It is a system which was very widely used of necessity during the War, and it was found to lead to the greatest possible inconvenience and to not infrequent injustice. It could not be helped during the War, but as a matter to be followed in times of peace it is in every respect objectionable. It means, and it must mean, that there is selection, and therefore favouritism, in the granting of these privileges, and it results in our own traders being uncertain from time to time whether they are going to get this permit, with the result that the export trade of this country suffers from a complete inability to know whether they can safely accept an order to repeat that which they have already supplied.
I have had put into my hands an illustration of the actual way in which this Consultative Committee works. I am assured that, so far from granting a licence upon an applicant showing that the dye he requires is one which can only be obtained abroad, when a dye merchant makes such an application he is faced with a demand, as a preliminary, to give an exact account of the dye, where it is proposed to get it, and who is the customer to whom he propose to sell it. That is certainly a highly objectionable proceeding when it is remembered that on this Committee are, among others, representatives of the dye manufacturers of this country. It is a common experience that a business man greatly object to give the name of his customer to those who are his natural rivals in the same trade. It does not stop there. Instead of granting a licence to import the dye because the dye is not being produced in this country, this Consultative Committee insists upon pressing upon the consumer some other dye which it alleges to be similar, though by no means identical, and urges that this substitute should be used rather than that a licence
should be given, and the result is—and I am assured that the textile trade both of Yorkshire and Lancashire feel this matter deeply—that the great industries of this country concerned in textile manufacture, that depend essentially on commanding markets abroad, are forced again and again to attempt to use dyes other than dyes which they want because these substitutes are the only substitutes which they are permitted to receive, with results which again and again have caused them to fear and to feel that their position in the neutral markets of the world is greatly prejudiced. I mention that merely because it really became, in fact, the working model upon which a great deal of the Safeguarding of Industries Act was based.
I turn to the Safeguarding of Industries Act itself. There is a good deal of discussion about Part II of the Act, but may I state in the clearest terms I can what is the provision that is made in Part I and how in fact it works. Part I of the Act puts a duty of 33⅓ per cent, upon a number of scheduled articles, on the ground that they are what are called key industries. I am not going to occupy the time of the House by discussing whether that description is justified. I would only say that it appears to me to be a very large assumption to suppose that the next war is going to depend on the same products as the last war, or that it will even largely turn on the same products. It is one of the most terrible things about the history of war that science marches to the work of destruction at such a pace that the methods which scientific ingenuity discovers for use on a future occasion often bear very little resemblance to the methods that have been followed in the past. Still, it is perfectly reasonable that we should protect by appropriate measures key industries, if by that you mean munitions industries, industries believed to be essential for preparation for future war. If that is to be done, the worst of all ways in which it can be done is by enabling selected manufacturers in time of peace, by the method of an import duty put upon particular articles, to make additional profits out of their fellow subjects. It is clear that if a key industry is a munitions industry the method by
which it should be safeguarded and promoted is not a method which produces consequences like that.
When I consider the Schedule, there are three or four considerations which emerge at once. The Schedule consists of a list of articles so oddly assorted that a former President of the Board of Trade once told the House that they might remind some people of the catalogue of a marine store dealer. When the Act was passed it was clearly understood by many people that the first part of the Act was going to be applied to those cases, and those cases only, in which a plausible case really was made out for an industry being a key industry in the sense of the Act. It has not worked in that way at all, and I appeal to hon. Members on different sides of the House who know how this thing has worked. Since this Amendment was put down I have been, and probably other Members have been, inundated with letters, in which it has been pointed out, for example, that instruments which are needed for purpose of science, which are needed for the purpose of attending to the sick, and which are needed in the course of dental surgery, are to-day being taxed in substantial sums under the First Schedule of the Act. It is an absurd thing that that should take place. The next thing to be observed is that as soon as this Act was passed the Board of Trade proceeded, under the terms of the Act, to expand the Schedule of ill-assorted odds and ends into what was practically a complete chemical dictionary. I was assured the other day by one of the most eminent chemists in the country, who has had occasion to examine this Board of Trade list most carefully and thoroughly, that it would have taxed his ingenuity when this list was first introduced to have mentioned half-a-dozen chemicals which were not to be found within it.
When this list was produced for the Board of Trade, after the Act was passed, instead of the chemicals being a selected number, which could be shown to have a plausible and direct connection with military preparation, a duty was found to be declared imposed on an enormous range of chemicals, amounting to over 6,000 in number. The big distinction known in commerce is a distinction between heavy chemicals and fine chemicals, and I submit to the House,
particularly to those Members who served in the last Parliament, and more particularly to those who are Free Traders but were prepared for the time being to acquiesce in this Act, that it was not ever the intention of those who supported this Act that it should be extended so as to become a tariff on the whole chemical trade. Heavy chemicals imported into this country in very large quantities for industrial purposes, and manfactured in this country in large quantities in quite successful competition, come into this Schedule in enormous numbers, and in every case there is a duty of 33⅓ per cent, imposed upon them.
I would like to point out what is the real result of the working of this First Schedule. In the first place, the most overwhelming proof that a particular chemical in the list can only be taxed if you are prepared to do a serious injury to British trade will not get that chemical out of the list. A very distinguished and most impartial Referee sits to discharge, his duty in endeavouring to deal with the list, and you might go before that Referee and prove that one of these 6,300 chemicals, was essential for British industry, that its importation was necessary to keep down the price and to secure an abundant supply, but if it comes within this list, all the argument in the world will not alter the fact that it is to have imposed upon it a tax of 33⅓ per cent. I propose to take an example—I will only take one, although I could take many—which happens to have been mentioned at Question Time to-day. Although the answer that was given was based on information in good faith, it by no means gave a full or fair account of what is actually happening in this instance, according to my information. The chemical in question is what amateur photographers know as hypo-hyposulphite of soda. Hypo is used in enormous quantities, not only for the purposes of photography, but in connection with the cinema industry. Thousands of tons of it are used every year in this country. On what principle is hypo brought within this Schedule? It most certainly is not a synthetic organic chemical, and, in the ordinary acceptance of the word, I am assured it is not a fine chemical. The only reason why hypo comes within this Schedule and is exposed to this heavy tax is because the Schedule contains the
phrase "analytical re-agents." While thousands of tons of hypo are used in industry in this country every year, there is a certain amount, which is not more than one or two tons, which is used every year in the laboratories for the purposes of chemical reaction.
The production of hyposulphite of soda was a well-established chemical industry before the War. It was a typical British pre-War chemical. It was an industry which was not only old-established, but it competed successfully with abroad. It is an industry which is not producing an article which is either a synthetic organic chemical or a fine chemical, and yet because there is a minute quantity of it which is used by chemists in the laboratory for a perfectly different purpose as a chemical re-agent, the whole of this importation was put by the Board of Trade into this list for the purpose of taxation. It by no means stops there, and this is where I think the information given by the Government is a little faulty. As the result of a protest that was made, they have put in front of hypo in the list the wonderful initial "R." The initial "R" was inserted up and down this Board of Trade list of chemicals because "R" happens to be the first letter of a Gorman adjective which means "pure." One gets some kind of notion here of where they got their list.
The next question that arises is: "What do you mean in the ease of hyposulphite of soda, when you say you are only going to tax it when it is pure? "At length the Board of Trade have given the ruling—the President of the Board of Trade will correct me if I am wrong, but I think my facts are right—that in the case of hypo, not necessarily in every case, it is called pure and exposed to the tax if it is of photographic quality. A substantial part of the hypo imported into this country is of photographic quality and used in industry, either for photography or in connection with cinema films. The result of this legislation, therefore, is that various manufacturers of hypo in this country are now able to enjoy the advantage; of a protective tariff of 33⅓ per cent. That is the way in which this precious Act of Parliament works when you endeavour to apply it in practice. I make good my point, that you may come forward and establish conclusively that an article
which is put in this list for taxation is a thing which, in the general interests of industry, ought to be imported without tax, but it does not make the slightest difference to this Act, which proceeds to impose what is nothing more than a high protective tariff on articles of general use and convenience. You might prove conclusively to the Board of Trade or to the distinguished Referee, who deals with these matters, that there are included in this list chemicals Which have no conceivable relation to either the last War or the next war, but it would not make one halfpenny worth of difference. He would not be able to remove a chemical of that kind from the list, because, if it comes within the terms scientific organic chemicals or fine chemicals, this Act of Parliament calls, and necessarily calls, for a tax being imposed upon it.
Let me give another illustration. About a month ago—and I am assured that this sort of thing is happening every week in different parts of the country— there arrived at the Millwall Docks, in London, a consignment of 24 lbs. of an expensive compound known in the trade as an aroma, an essence—peach and apricot aroma. I am assured on the highest chemical authority that nobody considers that either in the experience of the late War or the prospects of the next war could we possibly regard such an aroma as a means of beating our future enemy. The consignment was stopped by the Customs in pursuance of this Act of Parliament. They wanted to ascertain whether there was included in this compound any portion, however minute, of any one of these 6,300 chemicals, by the taxation of which we hope to win the next war. The importer pointed out that the stuff was costly, that it cost 11 guineas a lb. They took away two tins of the stuff in order to see what it was made of. They kept it for a considerable time. It was bound to be so, because of the ramifications of the Act, but I have no doubt they kept, it no longer than they could help. Meanwhile, the whole of the consignment was held up at the docks. When it was returned, it was short by just under 1 lb., namely, 15½ ozs. That is to say, the importer has lost a commodity which is worth something like £11. The mills of the Board of Trade grind slowly, but
they grind exceeding small, and it is quite gratifying to know that the safety of the country was secured and that victory in the next war was guaranteed because there was an intimation that there was a duty of 3s. 8d. to pay.
Will the House observe what an absurdity that is from the point of view of business? It is happening, as I am assured in every port in the country, week after week. Consignments come in which have been purchased for industrial purposes. They are consignments which, on the face of them, are perfectly innocent, yet the whole of these consignments are held up in order to make it possible, with the assistance of chemists in London, to ascertain whether some small fraction of these particular compounds is not subject to the duty which this Act imposes. I will give a third example as an illustration of what I desire the House to note—that these consequences are not due to clumsy or foolish administration. They are inherent in the structure of the Act itself. I have referred to the case of commodities marked with the letter "R," which indicates a certain standard of purity Duty is paid only if it is found that a particular consignment comes up to a certain standard of purity. Say that a business man imports certain standard chemicals used in industries, for instance, salammoniac or permanganate of potash, for industrial purposes and not in the least for the purposes of a laboratory, and imports them in large quantities, tons at a time. Permanganate of potash or salammoniac—many other instances could be given—are liable to a tax if they satisfy this test indicated by the letter "R." That is to say, if they come up to a certain standard of purity. The importer does not know. He has not bought the things because he is going to deal with them under the prescription of the British pharmacopœa. Gentlemen who know this subject very much better than I—though I have done my best to make myself acquainted with the facts—assure me that many of these chemicals, though imported for industrial purposes, will sometimes attain that standard of purity.
There was an example to-day when the President of the Board of Trade was asked about a consignment of 80 drums of permanganate of potash which has been held up at Salford Docks since 2nd October last. This very large quantity of stuff, which is being imported for
the purposes of industry, has been held up at Salford Docks because the Customs officials there are not quite sure as to whether the consignment comes up to this standard of purity, and they have got to take samples and send those samples to London, where the Custom House sends them to the analysts ill Holborn, who have got to make an analysis of the composition of these samples and make a report. In this particular case, when the importer rang up the analyst he was told that the Customs had got the stuff, and when he rang up the Customs they said that the analyst had got it, and there has been a delay of two months, all for the purpose of ascertaining whether a particular test which the Board of Trade sees fit to impose is fully satisfied.
If this is inherent in the working of the Act then this Act as a matter of administration ought not to continue on the Statute Book, when it is clear that it puts such burdens upon imports which come, not necessarily from Germany at all. Permanganate of potash is largely made in France and Belgium. Permanganate was put on this Board of Trade list 12 mouths ago, and there was no hearing of objections until last April. Meanwhile every importer has had to pay the duty. In no case is he entitled to a refund, even though it be proved that the duty was wrongly imposed. Every case is taken before the Referee, who has to be supported by the assistance of most important, but not always consistent, experts, and at some of these inquiries there have been five experts on one side to say what an organic, synthetic chemical is and five on the other side to say that the article has been put down wrongly, and they have to deal, not with a limited number of Selected chemicals, which can be proved to have a close connection with military preparation, but with the whole chemical industry of this country, which, so far as if is concerned with the import of chemicals, is being harassed and, so far as it is concerned with the production of chemicals, is being protected.
There is a statement, frequently made in justification of this policy which I invite the President of the Board of Trade to cheek, because I am assured that it needs much qualification. It is very often said, "See what the result of the Act is! There are fine chemicals in
great numbers which are now being produced in this country which were never produced here before." Lists are issued which suggest, for example, that 2,000 fine chemicals are now being made in this country as a result of the Act. I venture to ask the President of the Board of Trade to ascertain whether this is the tact? I am assured that that is a most misleading statement. These substances which are produced consist, as I am informed by the highest chemical authority whom I can consult—and I am quite willing to give the President of the Board of Trade the name if he wishes—very largely of chemicals which have been imported from Germany in a state of impurity, not quite pure enough to catch the duty, and all that has been done is to bring them in and expose them here to a further process of re-crystallisation, so that they are then brought just above this level, and thereupon the British importer, who has only just further refined the German chemicals, produces this fine chemical and sells it to the public at 33⅓ per cent, additional profit.
If that be the case, obviously we are face to face with a use of the Act of Parliament involved, I think, in its texture but entirely opposed to the real trading interests of the country and to the purpose which so many Members bad in view when they voted for it, and it lies, therefore, upon those who defend this Act, and upon the present Government, to make clear what the public advantage is, by way of preparation for the next war, which is in the least commensurate with the injury that they have caused. We are all familiar with the argument that the only way in which we can secure in this country a supply of skilled chemists, and of their products, is by putting these taxes upon chemical products imported from abroad. I would ask the House for a moment to consider whether that is a course of reasoning which can be justified. I do not believe that in any department of human knowledge at this time is there more to be gained by enabling our own men of science to have free access to, and to see what are the products of men of science in other parts of the world, and to think that you can improve the standard of applied scientific knowledge in this country by keeping out of this country the results of applied science elsewhere is just as absurd as if
you were to argue that the only way in which to raise the standard of British art is to put a tax upon the import of foreign pictures, and particularly true is that in the case of chemicals, because conditions are changing so constantly.
To think that in face of some national emergency of war we are going to be saved because we shut out from this country the knowledge and the processes which skilled scientific application supplies elsewhere, is a most fatal error. If you want to increase—and who does not want to increase—the amount and the value of our own scientific attainments, spend money as generously as you please on the development of scientific education and in supporting out of public money any institution, whether commercial or official, which can really make a case for its contributions in this valuable field of knowledge, and let us get rid of a system which, as has been the case under Part I. of the Act, has operated as nothing but a widespread piece of protection for privileged manufacturers, and as a constant irritation to the rest of the trading community.
I have dwelt longer on this than I meant to do, and I will now pass to Part II. of the Act, which is the part which deals with the effect of a depreciated exchange in enabling certain foreign products, fabric gloves, for example, from Germany, to come in here at cut rates which prejudice competitive British industry. There are two or three general considerations. In the first place, surely on reflection this method of trying to correct the effects of depreciated exchange abroad, by putting a fixed tariff of 33⅓ per cent, on specific products of the foreign country is a very odd one. I do not profess to be a master of this complicated subject, but if it be true that the depreciated exchange has got these consequences in business, then it cannot surely be that the enormous fluctuations in exchange which have taken place on the Continent of Europe, are met satisfactorily by putting a fixed tariff upon particular articles. If the case were made some months ago for putting a tariff of 33⅓ per cent, on particular goods coming from a particular country, because of the depreciated exchange, what is the state of the exchange now and how can it be, with the exchange
fluctuating in this enormous way, that there is one constant specific successively applied?
5.0 P.M.
There is a second observation. Is it not a very difficult proposition to maintain that the putting of an import duty upon the product of a country with a depreciated exchange is the best way to put the exchange right? I do not forget that only two days ago the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snow-den) said that there were only two people who understood the subject of exchange, and that one of them was dead and the other was in a lunatic asylum. I do not want to join either of them, and I do not claim to speak in language other than that of an inquirer, but I can remember when Sir Auckland Geddes, as President of the Board of Trade in the late Government, was going up and down the country appealing to British merchants to sell their goods to the United States of America. Why? In order to correct the exchange. He was speaking at a time when, instead of nearly 5 dollars being necessary to buy £l sterling, £1 sterling would have bought less than 4 dollars. He pointed out, quite correctly, that the best way to correct that inequality would be for us to sell our goods to America. If the object of this legislation is to make a contribution towards correcting the depreciated exchanges, it is, with great respect, the height of absurdity to say that you are going to do it by putting a duty on the goods which come from the country suffering from that difficulty. There are two very elementary propositions connected with exchanges, which I imagine everyone will accept, yet a great many people who talk on the subject appear to forget them. The first is, that although for convenience you measure the fluctuations of exchange in terms of currency, exchange fundamentally consists in the exchange of goods for goods. How you are to correct the exchanges between Central Europe and this country by putting an obstacle in the way of such exchanges of goods, is a thing which it is impossible to explain. The second remark I have to make is this: It is, of course, perfectly true that a depreciated exchange puts a country in a favourable position for the moment to make cash sales abroad. But, after all, trade does not consist entirely in selling goods, but in buying goods as well, and the moment
you come to the other end of the see-saw the position of a country which is suffering from depreciated exchange is very serious.
I am quite unable to understand why it is; supposed that you are going to correct the exchanges of Europe by making Orders under Part 2 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. In point of fact the only result, so far as you can trace it up to the present, has not been to correct the exchanges at all. Obviously it has done some other injuries. Reference has been made to fabric gloves, and on this subject I ask two questions. Is the information of the President of the Board of Trade the same as mine? I have information from a number of quarters in the City—that part of the City which deals with fabric gloves. That information is to the effect that since the fabric gloves Order has been introduced, the trade which is carried on by fabric glove merchants has suffered a very serious relapse. It is so stated to me, though my informant said that he does not attribute the whole of these consequences to the Order, for there has undoubtedly been in addition considerable industrial unrest. In the second place, is it not the fact that the glove merchants of London to-day find that the stocks they had provided themselves with, and which they wore in course of selling to the shops, are stocks which have been thrown back on their hands on the ground that purchasers refuse to pay the additional duty? Is there not, in fact, in the glove trade to-day that consequence to be observed? Lastly, does the right bon. Gentleman not agree that as long as fabric gloves were freely imported into this country, the price that was paid for these gloves and paid in sterling, was a price which the Saxony fabric glove manufacturer did not transmit to Germany—he probably had his own reasons for keeping the money out of Germany—but it was banked elsewhere, very often in Holland, and was used, not only for the purchase of the cotton yarn which goes to the making of the gloves, but for buying the yarn that was used in the trade in Germany for goods that went all over the world? If that be so, I would make one observation.
I submit that however confidently the President of the Board of Trade may affect to talk, it is not possible for him or for any other man to isolate this parti-
cular article of British trade and to say that his fabric glove Order has produced no unemployment, The right hon. Gentleman gave us some figures at question time. They showed that if you take the exports of Lancashire cotton yarn to Germany as a whole, there has, in fact, been a substantial falling off since the Order was made. It is quite true that by far the greater part of that export deals with counts of fineness of cotton which would not be the counts used in fabric gloves. But part of it is concerned with that trade. The actual figures are these: The Board of Trade monthly return for July, 1913, showed that the export of cotton yarn to Germany in the month of July, 1913, was 4,044,000 lbs. weight. Then came the interval of the War. When the War was over that trade gradually began to recover. In July, 1921, the export was only 656,000 lbs. weight. By October, 1921, it had risen to 1,276,000 lbs. weight. In July, 1922, it had reached 4,082,000 lbs. weight. The House will observe that the export of cotton yarn from Lancashire to Germany had reached in July, 1922, almost exactly the figure at which it stood before the War. What happened next? On 8th August, 1922, this fabric glove Order was made, and it is the fact, however you may choose to try to explain it, that from the time that that Order was made—the figures for September and October are an example— the trade showed a most serious decline. In September the export of cotton yarn to Germany was 3,080,000 lbs. weight, and the last available figures, given to me across the Table to-day, show that in October the export was 3,174,000 lbs. weight.

Mr. PERRING: What was it in 1913?

Sir J. SIMON: 4,044,000 lbs. weight.

Mr. PERRING: In September and October, 1913?

Sir J. SIMON: I think it would be utterly fallacious for anyone to connect these two figures like two parts of a puzzle and to pretend that as one went up the other went down. Of course, the actual statistics of trade are far more complicated than that. My proposition is a different proposition. It is that it is not possible for the official authorities in this country to get up in this House
and to make the confident assertion that the orders which they are making under Part II of this Act do no harm or injury to anyone. The truth is that since this gloves order was made there has been a falling off in the production of cotton yarn in Lancashire of over 1,000,000 1bs. weight a month, and it would be very difficult to believe that no part of that is due to the circumstance that this gloves order deliberately interferes with the system by which those who made these gloves in Saxony purchased and paid for their supplies of Lancashire cotton yarn, not only for the gloves used in this country, but for the gloves which they sold all over the world.
It is pointed out to me that another result of this gloves order is that it is calculated seriously to interfere with our trade in re-exports. The Customs authorities, quite properly, make strict regulations which must be complied with before you get relief on the ground that an import is to be re-sold abroad. I am assured by those who are glove merchants in the City that the result of the Fabric Glove Order is this: That it is becoming impossible to carry on a re-export trade because it is not possible to satisfy those conditions in practical business. What is the result? It is that the very output which this Order was designed to check and prevent in the alleged interests of British industry and employment is an output which is passing directly, without coming into this country, to various neutral markets. Under these circumstances my submission is that really a case is made out, not on the ground of high abstract theory, but on grounds of practical commonsense, for bringing this temporary Act to an end. The circumstance that it was designed to do, as it was hoped, a little good for a certain limited purpose, does not in the least justify its being continued if, as a matter of fact, it inflicts great wrong. The position of the Government is the exact reverse of the position of the Duke in the trial scene of the Merchant of Venice. He was appealed to
Wrest once the law to gain authority:
To do a great right, do a little wrong.
The misfortune of the Act is that in their endeavour to do a little right the Board of Trade are doing a great wrong, and doing a great wrong to all sorts of people. It was one thing to select certain specific
substances which have some close definable connection with munitions of war, and to adapt our machinery to encourage their production in this country. It is quite another thing to sweep all conceivable chemicals into your net, and really to provide nothing but widespread protection for a particular British trade. If the President of the Board of Trade would excuse the analogy, I would like to say that his position really reminds me of the chemist's assistant, who is described by the juryman in the trial scene of Bardell v. Pickwick. A juryman objected that it was not well to leave the shop in the hands of the chemist's assistant. He said:
He is a very nice boy, my lord, but he is not aquainted with drugs; and I know that the prevailing impression on his mind is that Epsom salts means oxalic acid, and syrup of senna laudanum.
It would be a wholly different matter if it could be shown that this Act, whether based on good or bad principles, was really so constructed that it applied only to limited cases. But it is an Act which has proved by experience to do something entirely different, and the experience of practical people all over the country is that it is inflicting very great injury on British trade as a whole. It follows, therefore, that our intention in moving this Amendment is not a narrow party intention at all. It is based on broad grounds of public policy, and it is supported by people who certainly cannot be accused of any narrow partisan views. When this Act was introduced, there was a most remarkable manifesto issued by the bankers of this country. No one will accuse the bankers of trying simply to serve the interests of a particular party in a House of Commons Debate. This was their language:
The policy of trying to exclude the productions of other countries, with the well-meant design of encouraging our own, cannot increase the volume of commerce or the total volume of employment here. The importation of foreign goods does not diminish the activities of our people because such goods, can only he paid for by the produce of British capital and labour.
One can well understand that in the transition from war to peace expedients of this sort appealed to many minds. Some Free Traders thought the time was so exceptional that ordinary considerations had not their usual value. Others —I wish to speak frankly—were prepared to suspend the application of their fiscal
convictions for the sake of maintaining (he Coalition in power. Whether the price was worth paying or not is a matter upon which different men may legitimately differ. At any rate, that Coalition is at an end, and we are not concerned to-day with the considerations which may for a time have suspended the demonstration of the full argument against these Measures. They were admittedly an experiment. The late President of the Board of Trade insisted upon that again and again. They were admittedly a novelty; they were admittedly only to be temporary, and they are now shown, I submit, to be an experiment which has worked very badly. While assisting selected interests, they are injuring the trade of the country as a whole. Instead of promoting, they are delaying the recovery of the exchanges. While they are artificially assisting one factory, they can be shown to be interfering with the trade and output of essential industries like the textile industry, and they are doing it by a. method which is bound to raise prices, which is bound to create unemployment in one place even though it is creating employment in another, and which involves endless interference with legitimate business.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): Anyone hearing the very able speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down would assume that the policy which is challenged in this Amendment, and challenged in its entirety, is a policy decided upon by the late Coalition in its declining days suddenly and unexpectedly. That policy is nothing of the sort. It is a policy with a long history; a history of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) wrote the first chapter. It is a policy which was deliberately deter mined upon during the War and was dictated by the lessons of the War. I do not propose in asking the House to approve of this policy to look at it merely from the point of view of one or two selected interests. I am going to ask the House to look at it with a due sense of proportion. After all there are a great many people in this House—

Mr. T. SHAW: On both sides.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: On both sides of the House. [Interruption.]
The process of Debate is more conveniently conducted if one speech is made at a time. There are scores of Members in this House who have a very clear recollection of, and who experienced in their own persons, the effect of our being deprived of these industries in the early days of the War. What did it mean when that War found us helpless and unprepared? We hear even to-day that people are anxious about aeroplanes. I wonder if the House realises that in the early days of the War if the Germans had not, with an unusual want of foresight, left behind largo depots of magnetos in this country, during the first six months of the War we could not have sent up a single aeroplane. The munition manufacturers came to the Government in the early days of the War and said that without scientific glass they could not carry out their experiments and testing, and unless we could manufacture that glass in this country it would be impossible for them to carry on with the manufacture of munitions. Anyone who served in any of our forces knows what the lack of optical glass meant for gunsights and in other ways. Every service on the sea, under the sea, in the air and on the land required it. The inclusion of latch needles in these provisions was pressed upon the Government of the day and accepted by them. Not only were the makers, but the people who used hosiery latch needles insistent on having them in the list. In regard to chemicals, we lacked drugs of every kind. We had not developed the manufacture of all kinds of anæsthetics.
It is utterly untrue to say that you can take a few selected chemicals and build up an industry that way. Everybody knows that if you are to have this industry built up; if you are to get the chemicals which are essential in peace and in war, the whole range of the chemical industry must be provided for. As a matter of fact, that question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley on the Financial Resolution when the Measure was introduced, and it was stated from this bench at the time that if we were to have a chemical industry at all, we had got to secure the whole of the chemical industry, because the bread-and-butter part of it was absolutely necessary if the industry was to be established. As to the importance of that industry, it is a
possession of that industry kept Germany in the War for at least a year and, possibly, two years longer than she would otherwise have been there. That experience is one which most hon. Members who served in the War have not forgotten, and it was an experience which had great weight with the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, when they had to consider it at the time. In January, 1916, Mr. Runciman, then President of the Board of Trade, made a long statement in the House on the economic position, and he said, in the course of it:
Every one of these articles, glass, chemicals, dyes, electrical apparatus, and I could name about a dozen others, were industries of vast importance not only to us as a great commercial country, but as a fighting country. Without these glass articles, without some of the porcelain articles which are essential for electrical construction, without the best type of magneto, without some of the best of our chemicals, and without a great range of dyes, which used to be manufactured in Germany, we were placed at a great disadvantage. Never again should that happen."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 10th January, 1916; col. 1359, Vol. 77.]
That was followed by the Economic Conference in Paris, where Resolutions were adopted in order to safeguard these industries firmly, not during the War, but after the War, and these Resolutions were subsequently commended to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley on his return.

Mr. ASQUITH: I was not in Paris.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the right hon. Gentleman was not in Paris, he, at any rate, was a very keen supporter of the Resolutions, and made a valuable contribution to the Debate in support of them.

Mr. ASQUITH: And I have done so since.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do so again. I admit these Resolutions did not find an equally keen supporter in the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment. On that occasion he disagreed very forcibly with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, and was reproved for so doing in a very interesting speech by Mr. Winston Churchill. It has sometimes been said that these Resolu-
tions envisaged a different position from that with which we are confronted. How is that? What was the position that was envisaged? Was it that the Germans were going to win the War? Of course it was not. It was the hope and expectation of this country that we should win the War, and these Resolutions were in the terms of that desire, and were intended to meet the conditions which would arise after the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley followed up the Paris Resolutions by setting up a Committee presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a Committee which, as he himself stated, was one of the greatest authority that could be, and that Committee had the whole of this matter referred to them. They recommended in their Report the protection and safeguarding of all these key industries, and their policy was right and the right hon. Gentleman was right when he commended that policy to the House. It is right because it is an absolutely essential insurance against war.

Mr. PRINGLE: Agriculture was part of the same policy.

Sir R. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Gentleman's observation is singularly irrelevant. He not infrequently addresses the House, and is always listened to with courtesy on this side of the House. I have a wide field to cover, and I listened for an hour and a quarter without interruption to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I ask for equal courtesy.

Mr. PRINGLE: I only wished to point out that agriculture was part of the same policy as that to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring. The observation is too relevant.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We need this as an insurance against war. I have been told that to make a demand of this kind suggests that one has a war mind. It is nothing of the kind. The best insurance that we will never have to face a war such as the one we went through is that this country should be ready and prepared with all essential industries to equip it, should it ever be threatened with a war again. More than that, the surest way of getting economy in military expenditure is to have your forces equipped and with efficient industries behind them. It is also the best insurance for peace. If it is true that the industries of peace in the future are
going to depend very largely upon science and particularly chemical science, that surely means that to have the chemical industry developed in this country is of I he utmost importance. These Acts, and I make this claim advisedly, have, without doubt, developed those industries to an extent which I should have previously believed quite impossible, in the course of the last year. They have been developed at a time of great trade depression, a most difficult time for industries to start in, and they have been developed at a time when they had enormous accumulations of war stocks against them. What is the position to-day? I take a few examples. To-day we are manufacturing excellent magnetos in the fullest quantities that are wanted. Wireless valves, greatly improved, are manufactured, which we did not undertake even in this country before the War, and we are now turning them out at the rate of 30,000 a week. In regard to optical glass, the works that existed have been carried on and new works are being developed. Chemicals, at which the right hon. and learned Member sneered, are developing on all hands.

Sir J. SIMON: Sneered?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, sneered at the British development of them, and so far from my information bearing out the information he gave to the House, I heir on all hands of works filling up, of works being expanded, and of new works being started, and I am informed that the suggestion that this is merely a kind of finishing process of materials imported from Germany is utterly without foundation in the great majority of cases. The range of production is growing steadily, and so is the quality. I would like to say a word about quality, because it is perfectly true that it is no good getting merely a large development and quantity unless you have got the quality as well, and it was a challenge thrown out when this Bill was before the House that British manufacturers would be unable to produce these products of the requisite quality. That is not the case. To-day the development of scientific instruments is so good that it is not merely satisfying people who want to buy in this country, but I have had a number of instances of scientific institutions in France, in Belgium, in Italy, coming to this country to buy scientific
instruments rather than buying them in the cheap market abroad. That seems to me to be at once an answer to those who say that scientific research is threatened, on the one hand, and that we cannot produce them in decent quality, on the other. I will give another test. We submitted recently a photographic lens to the Royal Air Force testing station at Farnborough. They, of all people, require to have the very best lenses in their work. The result of that test at the Farnborough station was this, that the experts gave it as their considered opinion to the Royal Air Force that the lenses supplied by the British firm were actually superior to the Zeiss lenses.
There are three questions. There is the question of being able to make the stuff, the question of being able to make it of a decent quality, and there is the question of price, and you have got to safeguard your people in the matter of price until the whole of the industry has been built up.

Sir J. SIMON: Why tax the imported article?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Because you have to build up this industry behind it. I am meeting the case point by point on the three points that are raised. The quality of the dyes is also challenged. The applications which are being made to the Dyes Committee to-day are decreasingly fewer than for such dyes as are manufactured in this country, and the experience is being shown that where dyes are manufactured in this country the consumers are not coming forward to ask for licences, and the licences that are applied for are more and more confined to dyes which are not made in this country. It is quite true that it is of the greatest importance that they should be of the best quality possible, but it very often happens that where a man is dissatisfied with the quality it is not always due to the cause to which he ascribes it. We are always told from the other side of the House that it is the British quality which is bad and the German quality which is good. I would like to give the House one example of an experience of a certain professor with a firm of chemical manufacturers. The professor was greatly displeased, because he got some chemicals of a very bad quality, and he wrote and said that the firm would readily understand that, until British manufacturers could guarantee purity in their products,
they really could hardly expect English men of science to buy from them. The British firm replied that in order to get the best development in their own factories, they had bought from Germany some special fine chemicals to experiment with and to analyse, in order to help them in the development of their own manufacture, and they had sent to this professor German chemicals, bought from Germany, and not their own products. That seems to me to be quite as useful an example to quote to this House as the examples picked here and there by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the speech with which he delighted the House.
Then I come to price. Price has been steadily falling, certainly so far as the manufacturers are concerned. If the middle man has not always passed on the benefit of falls in price to the purchasers, that is not the fault of the Government or of the Act, but there is a steady fall. Optical glass has fallen 20 per cent, to 50 per cent., optical instruments 15 per cent, to 35 per cent., microscopes are falling in price, wireless valves are down 10 per cent., and there is a decrease in the price of chemicals of something like 25 per cent, to 30 per cent. We were told we should have rising prices if we put this Act into force, but we have had a steady falling of prices in every range of production. Let me say another thing about price. It is a well-known fact, and experience has proved it, that the cheap price you get out of Germany is for the articles with which there is competition in this country. The moment an article has been driven from the market here, up goes the price of the German article. We have numbers of instances of that. I have had cases of glass. Where there is competition here, developed under the Act, down comes the German price; where there is no competition, and the article is not yet manufactured here, you get a rise in the price. I have an instance of an apparatus, scientific glass ware, which the Germans were originally selling at 4s. 6d. It has not yet been developed here, and the German price has risen to 27s.
Scientists have been quoted. I might quote an illustration given by Sir William Pope, Professor at Cambridge University, of his own experience. He
wanted, for his scientific research work, a particular chemical, and he found that he could get it only in Germany. He was asked £50 a kilogram for that particular chemical. They managed to develop the manufacture of that chemical here, and he was able to get it for £1 per kilogram, instead of paying £50 to the Germans. Then it is suggested that we have got to rely entirely upon German supplies, and Sir William Pope, a scientist if ever there was one, a man as keen for the development of scientific research as anybody in this House, adds this, to a brochure which has been recently published:
Unless a legislative barrier was maintained, any substance the manufacture of which is undertaken in this country will be dumped from Germany, the expense being recouped by unduly high charges for fine chemicals not yet made here.
That is the considered opinion of the Professor of Chemistry at Cambridge University.
Let me say one word in detail about dyes. Again, one might suppose that this Dyes Act had a history with which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were wholly disconnected and unacquainted, but that is not at all the case. I have read out the insistence which Mr. Runciman laid upon dyes in 1916. That is carried further, and very properly carried further. Later on in 1916, a Committee was set up by the right hon. Member for Paisley of some of his colleagues, under the chairmanship of Mr. Runciman, What did that Committee find, and what did they recommend? They recommended that the dye industry should be developed, and how? In favour of prohibiting the importation of dyestuffs after the War except under licences granted by a Dyes Commission. There is the foundation, that is the start, of the dyes legislation, actually proposed by the then President of the Board of Trade, and accepted as a form of legislation which ought to be adopted in this case. It went further, for that was followed up by the next Government, and in 1918 the then President of the Board of Trade (Lord Ash-field)—Sir Albert Stanley, as he then was —made this declaration in this House, speaking on behalf of the Government which succeeded the right hon. Member for Paisley:
In order to safeguard this particular industry against the great efforts which these
great German dye making firms are certain to make after the War to destroy all we have accomplished during the War, and to make this industry again subservient to Germany, the importation of nil foreign dycetuffs shall be controlled by a system of licences for a period of not loss than 10 years after the War.
He repeated that in Lancashire, and it was put into force by the Coalition which succeeded after the Election, and, so far from that policy being objected to by those who use dyes, the Colour Users' Association, which represents 80 per cent. of the people who use dyes in this country—

Mr. T. SHAW: It does not represent anything like that.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member is absolutely wrong about that, and there are others in this House who can speak on this point. In this matter the Act is being worked both with the Colour Users' Association and the Calico Printers' Association, and after consultation with them, I think I have more right to speak for both, possibly, than anybody in this House.

Mr. SHAW: The textile trade is a much more enormous thing than the Colour Users' Association, and you know it.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member is really mistaken. Eighty per cent, of the whole trade, all the different branches of it, which use colours at all in their work are in the Colour Users' Association. You have the Bradford Dyers in it, and others, all in it. They passed a resolution at Manchester, which is a place which has something to do with the textile trade, I believe, on 3rd December, 1920, at the very moment when the Dyes Bill, which hon. Members are attacking, was being introduced, because we wanted to know what was the view of the trade, of the dye-using trade, with regard to that Act, and we—the late Government— refused to bring that Bill forward until we knew that it was a Measure agreed by the dyemakcrs and users. They passed a resolution as follows:
That this meeting accepts and endorses the declared intention of His Majesty's Government that the establishment and maintenance of the dye industry in this country is essential to national security,—
That was the first part, and the resolution went on—
and this meeting hereby expresses its acceptance of the Dyestuffs Regulation Bill now before Parliament, as outlined by the chairman.
Therefore, you have a whole chain of authority—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, his successors, the late Government, the trade itself—and now how is this Act working? To listen to the speech delivered by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, one would suppose that this was being worked by the dyemakers, who held an inquisition and had control of the whole thing. It is nothing of the kind. The Chairman of the Committee happens to be—and I am very grateful to him for taking the office—a Liberal Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Stretford (Sir T. Hobinson). So far from the Committee-being controlled by those who make dyes, there are only three dyemakers on it; there are five colour users—five dye users —and three independent Members. Therefore, the whole of that Act is being worked by the trade itself, by the whole of the textile trade, and I can assure the House that that Licensing Committee is, I believe, giving complete satisfaction, except in one case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Ah, but a merchant may come forward, and he, is asked, before he is given a licence to import, for whom he wants to execute the order." And a very proper question to put to a merchant. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. When a textile manufacturer comes forward, we know that he needs the dyes for his own manufacture, but if you are to allow a merchant to import an indefinite number of dyes to put into stock, you defeat the whole object of the Act, and these questions which are put by the Licensing Committee are not dictated by me from the Board of Trade, but they are questions framed by the textile trade itself, in the interests of the textile trade. So much for the dye industry. I would only say that those who are so ready to speak for the dye-using industry would perhaps do well to listen to speeches made by people like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury), who is himself a man using the most complex kind of dyes, and who, when the rejection of this Act was moved last Session in this House, got
up and said that, as a calico printer, he regarded this Dyes Act as vital to the success of the industry in which he himself was engaged.

Mr. T. SHAW: In which he himself was engaged!

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I thought the hon. Member was claiming the repeal of this Act in the interests of the textile trade, and when you get a man who is a manufacturer in the textile trade saying that the trade must have the Act, I should have thought it was more important.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I would tell my hon. Friend opposite that when I was speaking I was not speaking personally, but for the Federation of Calico Printers.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The next argument that was used was that we are by these Acts impeding research. What nonsense that is. Germany is always being pointed out. Hon. Members opposite say, "Why do you not have trained chemists, and employ the skill of this country in research, as they have in Germany?" How have they done it in Germany? By having a few isolated professors of universities? Not a bit of it. They have built up a great chemical research school in Germany because every industry in itself in Germany is a research school for chemists, and unless we build up in this country—it was the wise advice given by the late Lord Moulton, an unimpeachable Free Trader and life-long Liberal, and the greatest authority on chemistry, I suppose, in this country —unless we build up in this country a dye industry and a chemical industry, you will have no avenue for your trained chemists to go into, and no scientific research worthy of anything, and the greatest service that can be rendered to scientific research whether inside industry or outside of it, is to make through these great trades an avenue of employment for chemists. That is the achievement which this part of the Act has brought about. As regards dyes, there is a Development Committee which has the most distinguished representatives upon it, which is following the working of the Act, which is following the making of dyes with the greatest keenness, and which, as a matter of fact, regularly meets now after the
Licensing Committee has had its sitting. Upon that committee are dye-users and men of science. In addition to that, I have given to the House already a good deal of information about the development which is taking place in the other key industries, but I propose, now that this Act has been running for a year, to go even more closely into it, and I have arranged with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, that a full investigation should be made by my Department and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and this must be a scientific investigation conducted by people, who have all the necessary qualifications and experience, into all those industries, in order that we may see the exact progress which has been made and is being made.
That covers the greater part of these Acts. I have dealt with dyes and with the other key industries, There remains only the questions of dumping and collapsed exchanges. With regard to that, I can hardly be contradicted if I say that unfair competition has nothing whatever to do with Free Trade. To build up an industry on dumped goods is at least as inconsistent with Free Trade as building it up behind tariff walls. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU have always done it!"] The hon. Gentleman may be an advocate of it, but it is not Free Trade, and the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond), who is the greatest authority on Free Trade, is the most outspoken about it. After all, if cheapness be the one test, I cannot understand the objection of hon. Members to taking reparation. If the one thing you want be cheap goods, and to get them as cheap as you can, no matter what the effect may be on your industries, why not get reparation in as large quantities as possible? Then you would be taking your goods for nothing, and I cannot imagine you can get goods much cheaper than that. In 1916, at the time of the Paris Economic Conference, the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was committed in his Paris Resolutions to legislation against dumping and unfair competition in the transition which came after the War. What is more, not only was he committed to it, but he came down to this House and boasted the paternity of those Resolu-
tions, and said that they had been drawn up and proposed by Mr. Runciman. I have got the quotation. This is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley said:
And it is perhaps right, and indeed necessary, that I should disclose the fact that three of the most important Resolutions, namely, those relating to the Most-Favoured Nation treatment, protection against dumping or unfair competition, and the adoption of measures to render the Allies independent of enemy countries as regards essential industries, were proposed by the British delegates and passed at the Conference in the form in which they were put forward. I am not, I think, betraying any secret when I say these resolutions put forward by the British delegates were drafted by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman), whoso return to active political life we are all glad to welcome to-day."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd Aug., 1916; col. 340, Vol. 85.]
Possibly, if he had adhered more firmly to the Resolutions which he had drafted and was a party to in 1916, we might again have welcomed his return to political life. This was again referred to Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee. What happened? A unanimous Report from that Committee in favour of legislation.

Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether this does not come under the rule against repetition?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Balfour of Burleigh Committee recommended that there should be such legislation. I would say to the House that we should be extraordinarily unwise to repeal legislation against dumping at a moment when the United States have set up an extreme prohibitive tariff round their own country, and in circumstances which will lead, most likely, to dumping in this country. There remains, apart from dumping, the question of the collapsed exchanges. That, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West, Swansea pointed out so repeatedly in the course of our Debates, is a form of unfair competition exactly of the same kind as dumping. In the course of our Debates he said:
It is no use tolling me that in introducing some means—duty or anything else— to deal with collapsed exchanges I am departing from the faith of Adam Smith, Cobden and Bright. They were not dealing with a situation like that of to-day. A living country cannot be guided by the shibboleths of the past. You must deal with what is in front of it now. These resolutions endeavour to deal with one of the most diffi-
cult situations any Government in any country ever had to face. The old arguments seem to me entirely waste of time and entirely unsuitable to the occasion."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1921; col. 1603, Vol. 141.]
What are we legislating against? We are legislating simply against the bounty due to the depreciated exchanges. I do not want to go into the whole of the argument. [HON. MEMBEKS: "Hear, hear!"] It is not because I am in the least afraid of them. I would only say that the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that you ought to have a tariff, if you have one at all, which goes up and down with every variation of the exchange, is not only impracticable, but ignores and misunderstands the real essence of the case, which is that the bounty does not vary with the fall of the exchange, but with the difference between the internal and external value of the currency. It is quite true that the effects have not been nearly so great as anyone might have expected, and, as was pointed out in the extraordinarily lucid speech, if I may say so, delivered by the late Prime Minister to the deputation which waited upon him from Lancashire, this was partly due to the prejudice against German goods, and the flight of the mark in Germany, which led to exaggerated home consumption; but he said that might end at any time, and we should be mad and wrong had we not been prepared. He said those conditions might change at any moment, and it was absolutely necessary for us to be prepared for danger, which might come at any moment, and which we must be in a position to meet when it came. The mere fact that only a few industries have had to be safeguarded in this way—is that a reason for doing nothing I Do a few thousand men more or less in employment in this or that industry to-day mean nothing when unemployment is so serious? And it is helping employment.
6.0 P.M.
Take the case of fabric gloves, which were the old battle-ground. I have asked for accounts from some of the different firms. One of them says they have already doubled their output, and that their spring orders are three times as much as they were last year. Another, which was a short time ago running two factories, is now on full time, and is opening a third. Then it is suggested that the Lancashire yarn makers would suffer. I pointed out
when that was argued at the time, first of all, that Germany certainly bought where she could buy best, and that her buying was not affected by any other consideration. Certainly she would not be so affected by the duty of 33⅓ per cent, here that she would turn to France where the duty is 150 per cent. against her. I pointed out, further, that she had ample foreign balances for importation purposes; that one of the difficulties of the whole position to-day in regard to the stabilisation of the German exchange is the fact that the Germans have bought exorbitantly and have piled up foreign balances abroad. The result has been exactly what I anticipated. It is quite true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there had been some slight fall in the exports of cotton yarns as a whole, but it must not be forgotten that one cause is that certain trades dependent on this are seasonable. The interesting thing is that, although there has been a fall in a natural ebb and flow of trade, in the total exports of cotton yarn one of the kinds which has kept its position, and in which there have been practically no fall at all, has been the exports of just that quality and count of yarn which is exported for the making of fabric gloves.
It is sometimes said that German policy is suicidal and that it cannot be pursued indefinitely. I am only too anxious to see that policy brought to an end. I shall welcome the stabilisation of the German exchange, which would lead again to normal conditions, but is it really any comfort, if I am murdered, for it to be said after my death that my murderer had committed suicide? That seems to me a very poor form of consolation. I have endeavoured to traverse both the specific allegations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman and the general scope of his arguments. My case rests upon a long chain of events. The whole principle upon which this policy was founded was accepted by all parties, and by each party in succession at the time when they were responsible. The advice given in turn as to the framing of policy was advice given with a full weight of responsibility by those who had to carry out the business of government. I suggest that it was wise advice which the Government gave to this House, and I would ask the House now not to reject it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is to be congratulated, I think, by every Member of this House on having that job in the Government which is most after his own heart. He is now where he can carry out and put into effect those Protectionist principles to which he has devoted his life. He is now in his right place, in a position to look after the trade of the country. In the eloquent discourse to which we have just listened, he almost carried me off my seat, and I began to think that Protection was probably the one solution of all our ills. I cannot but think how perfectly it has resulted in connection with all those trades that have been protected, and which have been under his auspices during the last two or three years. I cannot think why he does not extend it still further. We have heard of the perfect, magnetos which are now produced in this country, of the best type, and by the hundred thousand, and we have, in addition, thousands of men employed who might now be otherwise trying to find work! Why, then, if this is going to work as well as stated and produce the perfect magnetos of which we have heard, does the right hon. Gentleman not extend the scheme to all branches of British industry? I represent a district where we make crockeryware.
If there is an industry in this country which deserves protection it is crockery. Are we not a key industry? There is also the manufacture of telephone insulators, which is one of the most essential manufactures for war time. If we are not getting the best, then we have no right to claim to be a key industry; to complain of the competitive undercutting of the continental manufacturers, of those of our competitors who take advantage of the fall in exchanges in order to undercut us. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the sad position of the trade and to consider whether he cannot do for our trade what he has done for the trade in magnetos. Step out'. Advance Protection! Do not let us have just the halfway house. Some of us have to pay so that a few may get the benefit. [An HON. MEMBER: "The agricultural industry!"] I do not see why agriculture should not be protected, too, on the same principle. There was another flaw in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will finish the flaws, if I may, while I am busy. He did not only not go far enough in his
argument, but he called to his aid all those dusty, musty precedents of what Mr. Gladstone said in 1872, or what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley said as to the Paris Conference Resolutions, and he made play of what was said and done by our excellent friend Mr. Walter Runciman. I think he might have left Mr. Runciman out, because it is every so much easier when you are using quotations to quote from those who can reply rather than from those who cannot.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: May I interrupt to say that I quoted Mr. Walter Runciman, because he was responsible as President of the Board of Trade?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman could have found quotations as ample and as pertinent from nearly every Minister connected with the Coalition Government during the War which would have served his purpose as well, and would have been more easily provided. The right hon. Gentleman, as I know, has much pleasure in advocating Tariff Reform and Protection. Why, then, is it necessary to quote those Free Traders with whom he never agreed in the past and whose arguments cannot carry with them any convincing weight with him in the present? If the arguments for Protection are right on principle, if Protection does mean more employment in this country, if it is right then the more efficient the better. If we know that it is valuable for key industries, then it is not necessary to go to Paris or to quote the statements made by ex-Prime Ministers. That is following a bad precedent. We do not want what some of the wise men said 15, 20 or 50 years ago. The arguments of the President of the Board of Trade are good enough for the present time. Let us stick to practical politics; to practical illustrations of what Protection can do. We, particularly on these benches, the Labour party, are not really interested in the rival joustings of those who committed this country to Protection, whether it was Mr. Walter Runciman or wheher it was Mr. McKenna, or whether it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or the right hon. Member for Swansea."] Yes, whichever of these right hon. personalities did the trick, the Labour party does not mind leaving these rival authorities to finish off the dispute
amongst themselves and even to exterminate each other like the Kilkenny cats did. Carry on the good work! We are interested from the point of view of Labour, and Labour only.
How does this scheme affect unemployment? That is the keynote of the way in which we look at it. The right hon. Gentleman says, and says quite truly— and we agree with him entirely—that the Protection that he has been enabled to introduce under both Part I and Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act has increased employment in the trades protected. We admit it. We are quite certain that, by reason of Protection, by putting up tariff barriers around any particular trade in this country, you can increase the amount of employment in that trade. There is no doubt about that whatever. If that was all the story, there is not a man on these benches who would not be a Protectionist. But, as a matter of fact, that is not all the story. It is just as well that we, who are often assumed to be the stupid party, should put before the Front Bench opposite the point of view, not of the producer, but of the consumer, and show how the consumer may be suffering under the schemes of the right hon. Gentleman, for the position becomes such subsequently that there is more and more unemployment created in this country.
I notice, for instance, under Part II of this Safeguarding of Industries Act, that the Committees which have been appointed to consider whether or not any particular trade should be protected are specially instructed to see what would be the effect of the 33⅓ per cent, duty upon those other industries which use the article which they propose to protect, and wherever the article that it is proposed to protect is the raw material of another industry, they are instructed to inquire specially as to not only what additional employment the new tariff would be likely to set up, but also what unemployment is likely to be called owing to the damage done to some other trade which uses the protected raw materials. That is quite all right. The Committees are quite right in inquiring into both these things. Over and over again—if hon. Members will read these Reports which have been put into our hands as to all these various industries—hon. Members will find that the request for protection has been turned
down because protection of that sort would injure some other industry whose raw material would be increased in price. For instance, wire nails are ruled out because it would increase the cost of all those goods made by wire nails. There are other cases. But there is no special instruction given to the Committee to consider what is the effect of this tariff upon the consumer. The effect upon the consumer is not only known to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but also, I will add, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea. I recollect when the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Sir A. Mond) was conducting his assault on Free Trade from the benches opposite against the desperate opposition of his previous pupils; when he was challenged that this procedure would raise prices, he replied: "It is bound to do so; that is the object of it; if it did not do that there would be no point in it." Well, perhaps that is why no inquiry is held by these special Advisory Committees into the effect of the new tariff upon the consumer. He is going to pay. Had we not better just consider what it means to unemployment? After all, if the consumer has to pay more for the goods he wants, the money he has got, whether it be his wages or unearned income, does not go so far as it otherwise would do in buying those things. If you tax him by protective tariffs for the benefit of the protected manufacturers, it means that his wages do not run to buying the new suit of clothes for his wife—[Laughter]—I mean costume— [Laughter]—
There's the loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind,
but it does not alter the economic fact, which is that if you tax a man, taking from him some of his income, he has less to spend on the things which he wants, and he not only goes without the things he wants, but somebody else has to go without the opportunity of manufacturing them. Supposing you took from every hon. Member in this Chamber £5 to be spent in the purchase of Zeiss glasses. There would be more than a corresponding fall in employment due to the fact that all the Members of this House would not have that £5 to spend on things which they really did want. It is futile for any advocate of Protection to try and put before this House the Protection issue as
though it was only a question of how much employment was created in the trade protected, because you have to consider the amount of unemployment created owing to the increased price of goods, and the incapacity of the man with a fixed income to spend that income in the way he would otherwise do.
The Labour party have to look at this question, not only from the point of view of direct employment in the trade protected, but from the point of view of the unemployment that may be produced in the trade which has to use that protective raw material, and also from the point of view of the public whose purchasing powers are curtailed, and they are unable to employ the people they usually employ in making the goods they want. That is our attitude on this question, and when the right hon. Gentleman comes before this House and points out the success of his policy in regard to the protection of British dyestuffs he is quite wrong. What is more, we are not producing perfect dyes. When we think of the millions of money which has been put in that business and which has been practically thrown away, and that we still have not got the right dyes, and in consequence British textiles are being sent abroad to be dyed: when we remember that the Manchester Resolution which was passed two years ago when we had not seen the result of this kind of action, I think we may say that that scheme for building up that particular industry by Protection has not worked out very well.
I think to point to the rise of the chemical industry in Germany as an example of what we want to carry out in connection with dyes and other chemical industries shows an ignorance of bow Germany built up her chemical trade which I did not expect to find at the Board of Trade. I do not think even the Prime Minister imagines that the German chemical industry has been built up by Protection, because it has been built up far more by education. I think the Government might remember when they are making desperate efforts to cut down expenditure on education that, after all, education is the best sort of Protection, because it blesses all parties. As long as you have a scientific education strangled as it is at present and curtailed still further under the Geddes Axe last year so long will it be impossible for the
ordinary elementary school child to get a scientific, technical or chemical education. When we think of what happens to chemists when they have by self-sacrifice got a college degree we might follow the same practice as Germany and leave out Protection as the means of establishing a chemical industry in this country. I have heard of chemists with a university degree working in South Wales for £2 a week. What sort of encouragement, is that to people to become experts? Unless you give these people decent wages as well as decent opportunities of acquiring knowledge it is hopeless to imagine that you can build up a trade by protective tariffs. I would rather follow the old lines upon which, after all, we have managed pretty well.
The textile industry of this country has been built up not only on sound management, but on sound education. The textile industry needs no Protection, in fact, it suffers from it. Let us follow the precedents of the past in attempting to build up industries rather than adopt these new-fangled protective tariffs. It is quite true that you may, under this new scheme, build up infant industries, but when they grow up into industrial giants and become more powerful the more impossible will the right hon. Gentleman find it to take away the Protection under which they have grown up. You cannot start by saying that you will only use tariffs in the infant stages of industries or to protect industries which are unfairly attacked by competition with a country that has a falling exchange and when those conditions have come to an end cancel the tariffs.
We of the Labour party, when we sit on the benches opposite, will no doubt find hon. Members opposite, when we are trying to undo the work of the present Government, telling us the usual tale of how the widow and orphan have put their little nest egg into the chemical or dye-stuffs trade, and that it would be Bolshevism to deprive them of their incomes by abolishing these protective tariffs. We shall have the same old arguments used by hon. Members opposite as they used when we attempted to tax the landlords. The one thing you are doing by these protective tariffs is to create fresh vested interests to rob the community. May I say a word about Part II? It is erroneously supposed that
we are attacking that form of dumping against which we were warned in 1918, and which many people in this country dislike. I dislike intensely the idea of having goods dumped here at a price below that at which they are sold in the country of origin. I know that is only done for a time to secure immunity from competition, and then it is possible that the price may be raised. That is the sort of dumping which I can understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite taking steps to stop, but it is not the kind of dumping which takes place under Part II.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It does come under Part II.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think that that consideration has been taken into account at all. Take, for example, fabric gloves, domestic glass or hollow-ware. If you go through the Reports of the Committees, you will find that they have not considered whether the Germans were selling at a price below that which they were selling the same article in their own country, but they consider whether they are selling them here at a price lower than the English price, because of the difference between the value of the mark internally and externally, and that is quite a different consideration. That is a consideration which cannot be rightly called dumping in any sense, and, at any rate, it must be purely temporary.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite tried to make a point, against the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) when he said that the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate that what we were protecting people against was the difference between the internal and external value of the mark, a difference which exists only while the mark is changing in value. If its value falls week by week there will be a considerable difference and a drag in the fall of the internal value of the mark. It will fall externally and then internally, because wages and prices will not adjust themselves internally to the new diminished value of the mark with any promptitude. Judging internally and externally the prices of the mark recently, I should say the drag was about three months behind. Until you get the mark stationary, there is no hope of our customers ever being able to buy our
goods again. Everybody is basing their hopes upon stabilisation, and when you have stabilised things you will find no difference between the internal and the external value of the mark. In that case the whole necessity for your 33⅓ protective tariff ceases.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I would take it off then.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In spite of the fact that it produces perfect Zeiss glasses?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not wish to be misunderstood. What I said applies to duties in respect of depreciated exchange, not Part I.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that is a very good concession to have from the hon. Gentleman.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have always been of that opinion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: So far, we have been dealing only with the depreciated exchange in Germany, and practically Austria has not entered into our consideration, nor has Russia because, although the exchange has been falling, we have not been trading with Russia. All the industries considered at the present time have been protected on account of the fall in the mark. Certain industries have been refused protection in this matter because the competition came from Czecho Slovakia or from Belgium instead of from Germany. It is quite possible to go on putting on special tariffs as under Part II of the Act against goods of German origin. The Germans are our late enemies, and the natural sentiment of the people of this country is to keep out German goods. But there are signs now of a fall similar to the fall in the mark taking place in the French franc. One has already taken place in the Greek drachme. You have, indeed, the currencies all over the East of Europe dropping in a way that suggests that they are going to follow the example of the mark. Are we to have similar tariffs levied on French goods in such an event? I say such a thing would be disastrous. It would stultify finally our relations with France. It would be most unjust, seeing that because of the fall in the exchange a special tariff is put on German goods, it
exempted goods coming from other countries where an exactly similar fall in the currency has occurred. I suggest that the whole of our foreign relations, the whole of our trade, and the whole question of the employment of the people of this country would benefit and not suffer if we treated German trade and German manufactured goods on exactly the same lines as it is certain we shall treat French trade and French manufactured goods. We should treat German goods with the same indulgence as we extend to our Allies. It would be possible under the present arrangement to be perpetually setting up fresh Customs barriers interfering with trade, whereas our policy should be to break down the present Customs barriers and to set free all industry. We should go in for the establishment of Free Trade as the only possible basis on which our foreign relations can be founded.

Sir ALFRED MOND: I intervene in this Debate at this stage, because I understand that the Amendment which I have placed on the Table—asking for the appointment of a Select Committee of both Houses to inquire into the Administration of the Act—will not be called upon, and therefore it is only right, both to myself and to those with whom I am associated, that I should say a few words as to the reasons which led up to that Amendment. I have listened with very great attention to the interesting Debate we have had this afternoon. All the speeches I have heard from both sides of the House lead me more strongly than ever to the conclusion that the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper should be the one we are discussing—the one which ought to be accepted by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J Simon), in a very interesting speech, did not endeavour, and, I think, quite rightly, to cover the whole ground of the controversy as to how far or how much of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and other Measures of that kind are or are not an infringement of the economic doctrine of Free Trade. I agree with my right hon. Friend there is little to be gained by such an investigation. He reminded me of the days when I was an active opponent of what was known as the McKenna tariff—when I was one of a devoted and zealous band of Free Trade fanatics, and when I
fought proposals line by line, and Clause by Clause, in a manner which my successors never succeeded in doing when I was on the Front Bench. No doubt they did their very best. At the time when the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and his Coalition Government brought in their tariffs we were informed, no doubt with perfect sincerity, that the duties were intended for war purposes and to secure the exclusion from this country of certain goods. We were also told, although I was sceptical at the time, and my scepticism has proved to be well justified, that the duties would not survive the War. Duties, as a matter of fact, are very apt to survive every possible contingency, because no Chancellor of the Exchequer and no Government is likely to find it more convenient to take off duties than to retain them.
As a matter of fact, the question of Free Trade was not really challenged at that time. The whole question was as to key industries, and a Committee was set up, on which I served, to deal with it. We worked very hard and took a great deal of evidence, and finally endeavoured to establish what a key industry was. Many questions were addressed to the experts of the Board of Trade, and finally certain decisions were come to, dealing particularly with articles the absence of which proved very detrimental to us during the War. I imagine that a good many-people still feel that at some future time we ought not to run the risk of being put in the same position in regard to those articles. I think my right hon. Friend made out a very strong case indeed that the administration of the whole Act has gone far outside what was intended when the Act was passed. As one of the Members of the late Coalition, and as a Liberal Free Trader, I had something to do with the framing of the Act, and I say, candidly, that I never anticipated that the Schedules would be extended in the manner they have been. The late Government shortly before its release from office, set up a Committee, which included the late Minister for Education and myself, as well as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to investigate the working of the Act. We never completed our labours, but we did go into the matter at some length and got explanations from the Customs point of view as to why duties were put on articles which were never manufactured in this
country. A good many things were explained to us from the Revenue point of view rather than from the Board of Trade policy. It showed that when once a start is made with tariffs, one never knows where they are going to stop.
I hope my right hon. Friend who is now in charge of the Board of Trade will look into this matter, because I believe the whole administration of the Act requires overhauling. The key industries provisions were started with the specific and definite object of enabling new industries, embarked upon during the War, to get protection as against the Germans. It was a definite object of endeavouring to keep alive in this country industries started during the War in a very scientific manner—industries which were set up in this country at the most critical moment of the War. I really think that, apart from the general question involved in that part of the Act, there should be an impartial inquiry into the whole question. When my right hon. Friend dealt with the question of exchange, he said he objected very much to the Germans selling goods here at a lower price than they sold them in Germany. I would support the Government in preventing that being done. We have been told we must take into account the exchange. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said it was a perfectly absurd thing to have a fixed figure with a fluctuating exchange. We tried to work out a system with a rising and falling figure, but our expert advisers told us that it was impossible to have a tariff operating on those lines. We therefore adopted a rough and ready figure which would, we supposed, meet the difference between the external and the internal exchange. It is very difficult to estimate such a figure. We were informed on the authority of the Board of Trade officials that there was fear of an enormous flood of exports of German steel and iron which would submerge the whole or our heavy metal industry.
I would like to put this proposition. Suppose such a thing had happened. Suppose by means of a bad exchange the Germans for a period of five years could have closed down our pig and steel furnaces in this country, have put our skilled men out of the industry, and have reduced our plant to an obsolescent and depreciated condition. Would it have been possible after that lapse of five years
to restart the industry? Could anyone in this House view such a prospect with equanimity? Could we allow steel and iron to cease to be manufactured in this country for five or ten years? It do not think anyone could agree to that. A country which has not steel or iron industry is absolutely defenceless. It would be in the position of a Central African savage who with a bow and arrow was trying to fight a man with a machine gun. Therefore, quite apart from the economic question, on the score of defence, it would be a most dangerous thing to do. As a matter of fact, however, none of these alarming predictions have proved well founded. The whole history of the case has been entirely different to what was expected, and as a matter of fact we have merely had long discussions on wretched questions like that of fabric gloves. Personally I do not mind saying that I was against the Fabric Gloves Order, on the general principle that it would damage a larger industry; and I think the Committees which investigate these problems should have regard, not only to a particular industry, but to the whole effect on the industries of the country. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend as to that, hut surely to say that a duty of 33⅓ per cent, would not raise the price would indicate that one had forgotten all the economics one had ever learned, for there would be no use for a protective duty which left the price where it was.
I should like to say a word also on the question of chemicals, about which I used to know something, and about which I hope soon to know something more. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to analyse ordinary commercial chemicals in order to find out whether they are chemically pure for laboratory purposes. Surely that can be easily avoided. Chemically pure chemicals for laboratory purposes are not made in tons, and anyone who imports them ought to be able to see straightaway, from the analysis furnished with the invoice, whether or not the goods come within this classification. It seems to be a waste of time and money to go on acting in this way. I am certain, however, that that is not a defect of the Act, but a defect of the way in which it is being carried out. You can carry the question of
evasion to a point of such delicacy that you are spending vast sums of money in order to protect a very small amount of revenue, and, although that may be dear to the official heart, it is vexatious to the trader and not economical to the country.
When you come to the very much more difficult question of the education of chemists, there is some conflict of opinion. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that we wanted to educate more chemists, and then he complained that the chemists, when educated, only got very small fees. That is exactly what was happening in Germany before the War. Chemists were getting rather lower salaries than fitters. Obviously, if more chemists are produced than the market can absorb, their salaries fall. Surely, if the chemical industry in this country is to be discouraged, we ought to discourage people from becoming chemists. That, however, is a very different question from that of our dye industry, which is one of the most difficult questions that we have to face in this country. There are two or three fundamental difficulties which face us. We are endeavouring to establish one of the most difficult industries in the world in the face of most able competition, which has been working now for some 40 or 50 years, and which was started by some of the ablest commercial and technical men, who had a very long experience behind them. To establish such an industry here in absolutely free competition is a task which I believe to be almost—I will not say quite—impossible. On the other hand, failure to do so would be a very great disappointment to many. I do not think that-anyone, whether manufacturer or user of dyes, has been satisfied with the way in which the Act has been carried on, and this is another matter for very serious inquiry. The question is whether it is worth our while to make so great an effort, and, if so, are we doing it in the best possible way? Are we not hampering our textile industry by our system of licensing, and are there not other ways in which we can get more direct results for the benefit of our dye industry which we wish to maintain? France, America and Japan have put on very have duties in order to create a dye industry, and America
to-day has grown to be a formidable rival to Germany. She is manufacturing on a scale which the Germans did not anticipate—not in quality, but in quantity. France has also made great progress, and has, I believe, just recently come to terms with the German dye makers.
This is a very important question, and I am satisfied that many of the complaints from users of dyes have more justification than my right hon. Friend is led to believe by those who advise him. There were bitter complaints, which at one time were well justified, that dye users had to buy dyes which would not stand washing, and that, when those goods went to Eastern markets, they became very much spoiled, ruining reputations of very long standing. The only part of my right hon. Friend's speech which gave me a little ray of hope in that direction was when he said that, in connection with the Industrial Chemical Research Council, he is having some inquiry made as to how some of these new processes are functioning. I do not think we can be quite satisfied, however, with that. What we ask for in our Amendment is an impartial inquiry, by Members of both Houses, to go very much further than that, and really to examine the whole problem de novo in a different atmosphere from that in which we embarked upon this legislation some years ago. As far as I am concerned, I feel, though with some regret, that I cannot vote for the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I feel some regret, certainly, because I am not satisfied with the position as it stands. I do not, however, feel disposed to vote against the Amendment unless I can get a promise of a really impartial inquiry of a character which would really enable the problem to be solved in the way in which experience shows that it ought to be.

Mr. CLAYTON: I crave the indulgence of the: House as a new Member. I should not have intervened in this Debate if I had not had special practical experience of the effect of this Act upon industries in my own immediate town. If the House will permit me, I will refer specially to the manufacture of tungsten in this country. Between 1901 and 1903, a firm
of research chemists in the neighbourhood of London made a number of experiments on the method of manufacturing tungsten. In 1907, the inventors brought their process to my company, and suggested that we should undertake the manufacture with them in Widnes of the metal tungsten. The metal tungsten, I might tell those who do not know, is used in the manufacture of high-speed steel which is necessary in the engineering trade. Prior to the War, tungsten was obtained from Germany. In 1907, my company looked into the process that was submitted by these inventors, and found that it was sound commercially as compared with the then price of tungsten in this country. They made arrangements for the supply of the raw materials, and approached the users of tungsten here, largely located in Sheffield. The users of tungsten agreed to purchase some of the tungsten we proposed to make, but, before our new manufacture could be started, the German firms who up to that date had been supplying the tungsten heard of our threatened competition, and they approached the users in Sheffield, telling them that, if they would make a long contract with them, they would supply them with tungsten at a very greatly reduced price—a price, in fact, that was little above the bare cost of production. They also told them that if they took any of our product they would cut off their supplies. The result was that at that time the manufacture of tungsten in this country was abandoned.
Almost immediately after War started, it was found to be absolutely necessary that we should have a manufactory of tungsten in this country, and this time the Sheffield users approached the same inventors and decided to put up a works in Widnes, utilising the plans that had already been prepared, and working the process that we had had to abandon previously. By this means, during the War, the country was supplied with the necessary tungsten, and this firm and two or three other firms that made tungsten alloys kept this country supplied. Now the Widnes firm is again meeting with German competition, and this time the production in Germany is at a very low price owing to the effect of the exchange. Without the assistance of this Act of Parliament, the Widnes firm would have to stop manufacture.
I have taken this example, but the case is similar to that of a number of other manufactures. There are the special synthetic organic manufactures used in medicine and in photography, and there are also the special chemical and optical glass manufactures, all of which are kept alive by this Act. In the aggregate, they are employing a large number of men, and, at a time like this, when we want all the industries that we can think of established in this country, it seems to be absolute folly to scrap this Act of Parliament. It appears to me that it would be equally justifiable for the War Office to close the armament factories if they could buy guns from Krupps at a cheaper rate than that at which they could manufacture them in this country. I myself have an open mind as to the methods that should be used to keep these essential manufactures going in this country, but, until a better alternative method is submitted, I am absolutely against the repeal of the Safeguarding of Industries Act.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. ASQUITH: The hon. Member who has just sat down, in what I believe is a maiden speech, has contributed some useful concrete facts to the discussion, which has already tended, perhaps, to be a little more abstract than I should prefer it to be. I myself would have been perfectly content to leave the case for this Amendment as it was presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). It was a massive argument, which proceeded step by step, as it seemed to me, in an inevitable course of logical demonstration, and, so far as I have heard, it has not yet been attempted to be answered. I therefore only intervene—because my own opinions upon this matter have been expressed upon every stage of this legislation before it developed into an Act of Parliament— for a very short time, and for a limited purpose. The question before us is not the question as it presented itself to the last Parliament—whether or not there is a prima facie case for legislation of this kind. The question before us to-night, after having had now over a year's experience of the actual working of this legislation, is whether it has or has not proved to be effective and successful. After the speech of my right hon. and
learned Friend, it seems to me that that is a very difficult proposition to maintain. I felt how difficult it was to maintain when I listened to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He began—I hoped for better things—by going back to the Paris Resolutions. There are people in our social life—we have all seen them—who come, perhaps with rapidity, and with a rapidity which they do not expect, to wealth and position —perhaps they have even been honoured by the favour of the Crown—who fly at once to the Heralds' College for a coat of arms and a pedigree. That is the case with the authors of this legislation. It is very flattering to those who, like myself, and like the present Prime Minister, had a share in the authorship of the Paris Resolutions, that our parentage should be invoked for this little, misbegotten child, which, after a very sickly infancy, is now, as I venture to hope and believe, approaching a rapid and not a premature demise.
I am not going again—because it would be a pure waste of the time of the House— to point out—the easiest task in the whole world—that the Paris Resolutions have no more to do with this legislation than the "House that Jack Built." They lend no colour or countenance of any sort or kind. They were framed with a totally different object, in view of a totally different set of contingencies—contingencies which have never occurred. Let me point out—I am not going to waste time by repeating what I have said, certainly half a dozen times in this House and more times than I like to think outside of it—that they were qualified by all the participants in these Resolutions, to whatever State they belonged, by this proviso, that none of them were to be bound, in the pursuit of the common economic policy which, as a matter of defence when we were challenged by our enemies, we were prepared to adopt, in any sort of way to vary or tamper with their own fiscal system. I would never have assented, nor, I believe, would any of my colleagues in that Government have assented, to the Paris Resolutions unless they had been safeguarded by that proviso. I quite agree—and it does not admit of any dispute—that in the War we found ourselves deficient in certain materials, in commodities which would have been of use, and, indeed, were vital
and essential to its active prosecution. I was quite prepared then, as I am prepared now, to take such steps as are-reasonable and practicable to prevent the recurrence of any such danger.
Let me point out to the House once more—I am sorry to quote my own words, but I do not think I can improve on them for the moment—the condition under which alone I was prepared, and, I believe, any of my Liberal colleagues were prepared and, for the matter of that, for aught I know, my Unionist colleagues, to assent to that course. I said, in this House, on the 10th of May, 1921:
I am assuming that industries necessary for war purposes ought to be conserved in this country, and I lay down three conditions, which seem to me not to be theoretical or abstract, but to be abundantly justified by experience. I say, in the first place, that you ought not to divert labour or capital from more essential forms of production. I say, in the next place, that you ought not to foist upon the British consumer, or, what is equally important, upon the British producer, articles inferior in quality and excessive in price.
A thing which you are doing.
I say, thirdly"—
and to this I attach the greatest importance—
that the profits resulting from State assistance given to these industries, after providing reasonable remuneration for those who have incurred the risk of subscribing capital and embarking labour, should be for the community, and not for particular interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1921; col. 1724, Vol. 141.]
Except subject to those governing and over-riding conditions, and those alone, I would never have consented to take a part in supporting State assistance to industries in this country. A tariff of 33⅓ per cent., or whatever it is, is the worst possible means of obtaining really beneficial and satisfactory results. It violates all those conditions, and in particular it puts in the pocket of a selected and privileged part of the community profits which, after they are made for public purposes and in the general interests of the community and under the auspices of the State, ought to go, not to any particular class, but to the relief of the taxpayers as a whole. That is all I have to say on the well-worn theme of the Paris Resolutions.
Let me now, for two or three minutes, ask the House to address itself to a more practical and important consideration.
Throughout the controversies and the debates which preceded this legislation, I attached much more importance to the second than the first part of the Act. The first part of the Act has produced, it is true, this bewildering jumble of "Key" industries, so called, many of which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) has pointed out were entirely unknown in this country at the time of the passage of the Act. They amount, I think, to 6,000–

Sir A. MOND: 6,300.

Mr. ASQUITH: 6,300, after the various amplification and developments which were scheduled under the fostering and prolific energies of the Board of Trade.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Not industries.

Mr. ASQUITH: Categories, at any rate, Categories of commodities. Six thousand three hundred categories. A catalogue of categories which are grouped together comprehensively under the generic name of "key industries." The thing is a perfect farce. It is worse than a farce [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a fraud!"] I do not like to use language like that, but it is worse than a farce. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley has shown in his speech—not by abstract demonstration, but by concrete illustration, case after case—by the small degree of artificial protection which you give to one or another of these mostly infantile, experimental and immature forms of production, whatever advantages the producers may reap from them, the injury to business at large, in delay in the ridiculous processes—which my right hon. and learned Friend subjected to a searching analysis. You search for a commodity —which is a trade commodity, and everybody knows it to be a trade commodity—to see if there be not, peradven-ture, some infinitesimal proportion of a thing which would be used for laboratory purposes. It is condemned, and I believe condemned without the dissentient voice of any authority, by the whole banking and commercial community of this country. I myself was invited in the early part of the present year to an absolutely non-party meeting in the City of London, convened by the bankers, merchants and brokers of that great community. I was invited to that meeting,
and the resolution to which I spoke was proposed by the chairman of one of the leading banks. I do not think I have ever been in what to me was such respectable company before. The proportion of Conservatives among those gentlemen was three, four or five to one. They have never given a Liberal vote in their lives, and they have kept the City of London, from the political point of view, an impregnable fortress of Toryism for the last 40 years. Without a dissentient voice they carried the resolution, condemning this Act and demanding its speedy repeal. I am not now dealing with abstractions and economic dialectics. I am dealing with practical experience, and that is the opinion of the vast bulk of the producers, distributors, bankers and the brokers of this country.
I want to say one word with regard to the second part. It is ostensibly directed against dumping. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea and I used for long to be members of the same school of economics. I heard him say something about dumping to-night. I have never made any concealment of my own views about dumping. I never did in the great fiscal controversy carried on many years ago, when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain embarked on his campaign for what is called Tariff Reform. I have always said that Free Traders are not in any sense bound by their creed to be economic or fiscal quietists or tranquil-lists, and that if a case were made out where there was what I may call an organised attempt on the part of foreign producers acting, as they very often do, in rings and combinations under the shelter of a Protective Tariff of their own to try to undermine, oust and destroy particular branches of British production, there is nothing in the doctrine of Free Trade which compels me or any Free Trader td take that lying down. [Interruption.] I have said so now for 25 years. But I say, in the first place, show me such a case. There is no such case now. It is not pretended. I have never seen a scintilla of evidence in support of the contention, if it were advanced, that there is anything in the nature of dumping in that sense of the word going on in this country now. The first thing I say is show me such a case. The next thing I say is, show me that the remedy you pro-
pose to apply will not be worse than the disease. I have never seen a form of tariff suggested by anyone which would not inflict more hardship on the country that resorted to it as a protection against dumping than any kind of dumping we have to fear.
But that is an old story. The novelty in regard to this case was the new factor produced by the fluctuations of exchange. When this Act was before the House more than a year ago the value of the mark was somewhere between 250 and 300. The corresponding figure to-day is between 30,000 and 40,000. Here is a very simple proposition. I put it to the House. If 33⅓ per cent., which is the figure fixed in this Act, is a proper figure to fix to protect the unfortunate producer in this country against the bounty which the German producer in his own country gains through the depreciation of the mark to 300, what is the figure you ought to fix now? I am not saying it ought necessarily to be a precise proportion, but is it not perfectly ridiculous? We are supposed to be a body of business men. If 33⅓ per cent. was a year ago, under these conditions, an adequate or, at any rote, a reasonable safeguard, under the conditions now prevailing is it not perfectly illusory? We could not then foresee what the fluctuations were going to be. As I pointed out to the House then, it is inherent in the case. Unless you have a sliding scale which will proportion the import duty to the constant fluctuations, not only in the mark—it is not a question merely of the mark. What about the franc? What about the lira? What about the Czecho-Slovakian currency, which is in a very much better position? What about Poland? What about Austria? I really do not think a more unpractical proposition ever entered into the mind of man. Of course it has been perfectly useless for its alleged purpose. Let me add this, which is also a most relevant consideration, which I think has not been quite sufficiently adverted to. When this Measure was before the House it was suddenly discovered that we have, such things as commercial treaties with other nations and that Part II of this Act, in the form in which it was presented to the House, was a flagrant violation of those commercial treaties.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: indicated dissent.

Mr. ASQUITH: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I am stating a fact, witness to which is borne by the terms of the Act itself, because it was found necessary to introduce in Committee a Clause preserving the authority and the integrity of these commercial treaties. What is the result? [Interruption.] The Paris Resolutions were directed against our enemies. The result is that the provisions of the second part of this Act do not apply to the United States, and they do not apply to a score of countries, but they apply to Prance just as much as they do to Germany, so that you have this double set of absurdities. You have a patchwork application to particular countries, while a great number of countries, equally important commercially, are excluded from its operation, and you have a provision to deal with the fluctuations of exchange which is fixed, stereotyped, unvarying, while the exchanges themselves are jumping up and down with an infinitude of variations and fluctuations. This is my final appeal to the House. Do not go back to abstract economics. Do not even go back to the controversy between Free Trade and Protection, important as it is, and living as it is. Without going back to either the one or the other, take this Act as it stands, judge it by the experience we have had, forecast its future operation if it is to be permitted to remain in existence, and is there a man amongst us, from the evidence which has been brought before the House tonight, who does not see that it is dead and ought to be buried?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I was very glad to hear some words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman when he said that if any organised attempt were made by any other country to destroy trade in this country he would take measures to stop it, and I hope to show him that there is need for protective measures in respect of the dye trade. It has also been said that the Mover of the Amendment has not been answered. It is with some trepidation that I stand up before a man of his legal eminence, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, to answer any argument which he has put forward, but practically the whole of my life has been engaged in the dye trade, and I am a large consumer of dyes, and therefore if this Bill
was going to do any damage to the dye consumer I should be the first man to vote against it. I speak as a Free Trader, but we should cast aside the question of Free Trade or Tariff Reform and discuss this matter on its business merits, and as long as I stand in this House as a business man I shall act on that principle. Let us examine the dye question. When the War broke out, if it had not been for the British Alizarine Company and our Swiss friends, every dye works in this country would have been closed down in three months. Every dye consumer said then: "This thing shall never happen again! Never will we put into the hands of any foreign country the power to close down our industries and throw hundreds of thousands of men out of employment." In 1880 this country was manufacturing alizarine. The Germans went on cutting the price until they brought it down to fivepence. Then our works closed. The Germans immediately put the price up to half-a-crown. A company of dye users set up the British Alizarine Company, not to make a profit, but in order to give them that dye which was necessary for their use at a reasonable price. If it had not been for that company and for the limited amount which Switzerland could send us, the whole of our factories would have been closed during the War. It is all very well to say we shall never have another war. I hope we never shall. But I am going to argue the question purely and simply from the business point of view. Germany has got all her intermediates from this country. Is it not a rather puerile thing that we should have to send all our intermediates over to Germany and that she should make them into dyes and send them here at an increased cost? Is it not better that the whole of that process should be carried out in this country and that with those intermediates we should give work to thousands of chemists in order to produce the dyes? If you remember that before the War Germany exported in dyes over £97,000,000 worth per annum, double our coal output and more than our textile output, what would it mean to us if we could get the industry going in this country? I am going to try to show that it is quite possible in this country for us to become the biggest colour-producing country in the world, because I am going to tell the House what has gone on since this Act came into existence. The question was
raised by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who said that if you go for a licence you get inferior colour. I can tell him that my works have been going on all this time, with production spreading over great varieties, and I have never once had an inferior dye. The dye goes through the laboratory, and is checked by our chemists. I have never had any difficulty in getting any dye. I think these facts are sufficient to show that this Act is on the whole a good Act. I am willing to admit that there may have been mistakes made here and there. That always happens in new legislation. The dye users of this country who urged the Board of Trade in 1918 to bring forward this Act are in favour of the Act at the present time, and they would certainly not support it if all the allegations that are made about people not getting their colours or getting inferior colours were true.
I will give a few examples of the German game in regard to dyes. We manufacture kymric green, which was the equivalent of the German cyanine green. The German price was 37s. 6d. We put the dye on the market at 20s. As soon as the Germans were aware that our dye was on the market at 20s. they dropped their price to 15s., and only a few weeks ago they dropped it to 10s. For diamine black Germany was charging 8s. 1d. a pound. We started to manufacture, and she immediately dropped to 3s. 6d. per pound. Germany had another colour, Orange No. 2, at 8s. Id. a pound. When we got it on the market she came down to 2s. 6d. a pound. Alizarine irisolo Germany manufactured at 53s. 7d. a pound. When we put it on the market, she immediately dropped to 22s. 4d. I could quote hundreds of other instances. The point I want to make is this, that the German is no fool. He was out to beat and conquer us in the War, and he is out to get hold of our commerce and what we produce in this country. In 1913, we imported 367 tons 884 cwt. of colour, for which we paid Germany £1,892,055, or an average of 11d. per pound. In 1920, we imported from Germany 196 tons 658 cwts., for which we paid Germany £7,535,194, an average of 6s. 10d. per pound, or 7½ times the pre-War price.
If this Act were repealed, Germany, with her huge combine known as the I.G.
Combine, which comprises all the works in Germany, could smash every works in this country within six months. There is no doubt about that. She could then charge any price she liked. Where would our textile goods be then? When Germany had smashed our dye industries, she could charge any price she liked for the dyes which we required for our textile goods. Furthermore, she could erect large factories in her own country, use her dyestuffs to put on the cloth, and then, if she allowed us to have any dye at all, she could charge us such an exorbitant price that we could not compete with her. The charges made against this Act come from two sources. In the first place, they are made by the agents. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said he had been at a meeting of merchants who condemned this Act. They are out to kill the Act. They are not manufacturers; they do not employ labour; they are simply merchants and agents, getting one per cent, or one and a half per cent, for buying foreign stuff and shipping it abroad, and not giving our industries any chance. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the bankers?"] Bankers are not always good business men. This is not a banker's job. How could a banker go through the work that I have to do? There sue also a certain number of people who are political fanatical Free Traders, who, because they are Free Traders, will not make an exception even if they see that by making an exception they are really going to bring a benefit to the country. There are certain men who never will turn from their Free Trade, just as there are Tariff Reformers who will never change their views.
It has been said that the Dyestuffs Act is killing our export trade. Lord Emmott, speaking at Oldham a few days ago, said that this Act is damaging our export trade. I wish that before he makes this sort of assertion Lord Emmott would get some figures from the Board of Trade, or that he would get the different costs of the articles. I will give him something to answer. Dyed piece goods, which consume most of the dyestuffs per yard, show an increased price over 1914 of 125 to 150 per cent. Printed cloth, which uses less dyestuffs, shows an increase of 200 per cent., while bleached cloth, which uses no dyestuffs at all, shows an increase of 350 per cent. How on earth, in the face of
these figures, can Lord Emmott or anybody else say that this Dyestuffs Act is ruining our foreign trade? Take 150 yards of cloth, the colour that is put on that cloth—I have said it before in this House, and I am willing to show any hon. Member my statistics if he doubts my statement—does not amount to more than 3 or 5 per cent, at the outside. The whole of the other charges are for coal, wages and upkeep. Therefore, even if we have to pay more for the dyes during the stage while the dye firms of this country are building up their business, it would not make any very material difference. I am willing to pay from Is. to 2s. a lb. more, and it will not make the slightest difference to my production.
We have been told that a great deal of cloth is going abroad. Switzerland, Alsace and Holland have been mentioned. Hon. Members do not tell the whole story. Cloth went to these countries before the War, just as it is going now. What is the reason that a certain amount of printed cloth is going to Switzerland? It is because they have a patent finish in Switzerland which this country has been trying to imitate for years, but without success. We cannot get that finish. There is something in. the water or in the atmospheric conditions in Switzerland which we have not got here which enables the Swiss to Ret this particular finish. Merchants who want that particular finish have to send goods to Switzerland, because we cannot give it them here. In regard to Alsace, we know that certain classes of goods are printed at Mulhausen. Where we print a mile of cloth, Mulhausen only prints a yard. She is engaged in novelties, silks, voiles and very fine classes of work, which no printer would undertake in this country because it would not pay, owing to short runs and expensive engraving. There is no more cloth going from this country to these places abroad than was the case before the War.
What progress has the dye industry made since they started this scheme? I can give the colours that have been actually produced in this country, and they are equally as good as the German article, because they have been tested in my own laboratory. In direct colours, taking them in the bulk, we have produced 500 new colours. When this Act came into force, the colour users informed the British Dyestuffs Corporation that if they could produce for them 80to 90 new
colours, it would be sufficient to put them on to something else. We have produced 500 new colours, and we have also produced 516 colours which are the equivalent of German colours, but these latter colours are not in circulation at the present time and I dare not mention them, because it is a trade secret. I will, however, show them in confidence to anyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why mention them?"] I said, in confidence. That means that 1,016 new colours have been produced. These dyes are direct colours, acid wool colours, chrome and mordant colours, basic colours, and sulphur colours. We have also produced in this country what we have never produced before, and that is, vat colours. In vat colours alone we have produced 28. That is a range which practically any works could work upon. We have also produced 82 chemicals for research work alone, which we had not in this country before and which Germany had exclusively. It is said that the colour users, though in favour of this Measure in 1918, were not in favour of it now. On this point may I read an extract from the report of a meeting of the Colour Users' Association, held in Manchester on 5th July, this year. Mr. Sutcliffe-Smith, the Chairman of the Association, said:
If the Dyestuffs Acts weare withdrawn today without further safeguard there is not a shadow of doubt that the huge German trust known as the I.G., with its enormous resources and the depreciated currency, could very shortly smash the British industry by taking advantage of this country's shortsighted policy. The German makers would then have the textile trade at their mercy, so far as colour is concerned, charging as much as they wished, as they are practically doing with any special colours which they directly import.
To say that the colour users are not just as keen on this point as in 1919 is not correct.

Mr. HARDIE: Have you any experience of dyes made in Scotland?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Yes, I think that I have had some dyes from Scotland. Of course, most of my dyes are bought from the British Dyestuffs, the Clayton Aniline and a number of smaller producers in this country, and a certain number of dyes, of course, from Switzerland. I cannot understand why any representative of labour or of the consumers should be in favour of the repeal of this Act, It is the consumers who have forced this Act upon the Govern-
ment. If I thought it disadvantageous to industry I would vote for its repeal to-morrow, but there is no greater mistake than for statesmen to look merely at what is happening to-day, and not to look also at what may happen four or five years hence. There is no shadow of doubt that, if this Bill went, Germany would go on cutting, as she did with the Alizarine Company, and as she is doing now, until all the money spent on putting up these big colour factories had gone and until she had absolutely wiped out our trade. I ask hon. Members opposite not to press for the repeal of this Act. Those who had to go through the experience which we had to go through during the War, when the supply of colour was shut off or sold at these enormous prices, must remember that, even if we do not have another war, if we once let Germany occupy the position which she occupied before the War this country will be ruined in her textile trade, and when an Act of Parliament is so necessary, I cannot understand how my hon. Friends opposite can vote for its repeal, which would throw some thousands of men out of work and prevent the erection of these big dye works in this country, which would give employment to thousands more.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: As a new Member, I should hardly have intervened in this Debate were it not that I have some little knowledge of the textile trade and because I wish in particular to take up the statement of the President of the Board of Trade as to the colour users being in favour of the Dyestuffs Act. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) said that the colour users were in favour of this unfortunate Act. The hon. Member went so far as to read from the last report of the Colour Users' Association. Both the hon. Member and the President of the Board of Trade were a good deal behindhand in their information. I agree that at the end of 1920 the colour users agreed to the Act, though they were by no means enthusiastic about it, but at the last annual meeting, after 18 months' experience of the operation of the Act, their opinion is expressed in the passage on page 9 of the Report, which says:
The council desire to place on record its opinion that the colour users of this country
are being placed in a disadvantageous competitive position owing to the extremely high prices which they are compelled to pay for their dyestuffs.
I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade would not leave the House ignorant of that very essential later information as to what the colour users are doing. I have made some notes on the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, but in a maiden speech one must be excused if he cannot reply to everything said in Debate. It seemed to me that the hon. Member gave his own case away. He said that if we repeal this Act Germany would simply swamp our infant dye-making industry. Well, if it could do that why is it not swamping the infant Swiss dye-making industry, which is very much alive to-day and which undoubtedly saved the British textile industry during the War by supplying us with various dyes? [HON. MEMBERS: "From Germany!"] They were not from Germany. They were made from the intermediates and raw materials sent from this country for the purpose. Swiss dye-makers to-day are prepared to undertake to supply this country with dyes made exclusively from raw materials and intermediates supplied by this country, and our Licensing Committee will not allow us to import the dye-wares that we want. It is strange to remark how we who are in the trade arrive at the same conclusion by entirely different methods. The hon. Member for Salford told us that the value of the dyeware in a piece would not be more than from 3 to 5 per cent. Before the War we always calculated in the textile trade that the value of the colour of the dyeware used in a piece was about 1 per cent. The hon. Member says that it is not more than from 3 to 5 per cent. I have got confirmation in a telegram received this morning in pursuance of some inquiries. The telegram says:
We have offered to supply wool green manufactured in Switzerland at 3s. 9d., lowest price in England 7s. 6d. Decision the Licensing Committee on the price question not known yet.
There you have a specific, definite instance, which is not given in confidence, of a Swiss dyemaker offering to supply us British dye users with a very well-known dye at half the cost at which our Licensing Committee will allow us to get the British substitute. The Licensing Committee is not allowing that dye
to come into this country, at any rate, until we get the decision for which we are waiting. The extra cost of the dye, as I have calculated it out on the goods that I sell myself, amounts to just about 2½ per cent, on the value of certain stable goods which I sell. I agree with my hon. Friend that the dyeware only does come to from 2½ to 5 per cent, of the value of the goods. But my point is, that the Swiss dyeware comes to 2½, and the British dyeware comes to 5 per cent., and the 2½ per cent, difference is a very important amount when we deal with the quantity and the profit with which we unfortunate textile people have to deal now. There was a time when 2½ per cent, did not matter. 2½ per cent, to-day means a lot.
8.0 P.M.
I represent in one aspect an important trade. The textile trades are far more important than hon. Members on the other side of the House may think. The textile trades provide 43 per cent, of the whole of our manufactured exports, and they have provided fully that proportion for many years. Manchester and Bradford, in addition to being important manufacturing towns, are very essentially merchant towns, Manchester for the cotton trade and Bradford for the wool trade. Manufactures are concentrated there and spread throughout the world. My particular job in the trade is that of what my Labour Friends would call a parasite: I am a merchant; I make a humble and laborious living by buying and selling goods. I would like to tell my Labour Friends that when the slump comes, when our Japanese Allies and American associates and Colonial cousins and Continental friends all throw up their contracts and do not pay for the goods which they have bought, it is on the poor unfortunate merchants that the main loss falls. A great many of them have gone bankrupt.
Let me recall what happened during the War. I have come here with the very kind indulgence of the House to make my maiden speech, not a controversial speech at all, but a plain man's plea for the trade of my own town and district. When the War came, and we were cut off from the use of colour from Germany, our linen became dirty all
of a sudden; the colour rubbed. The "Daily Herald" we could not read with clean hands, because they became dirty. The "Morning Post," to which we look for the early Bourbon view of affairs, we said was a dirty rag, and we laid it aside. Then there were leathers. I can imagine the leader of the Labour party going to play golf, and as a good Socialist carrying his own golf clubs. If he were caught in the rain, there would be a dirty brown streak over his shoulder where the strap of the bag had been. If I might mention such a subject as ladies' stockings, I would say that those of us in the trade have had many sad hours because of the complaints we have received that a considerable portion of the pigment on the lady's stocking was transferred before the stockings got into the wash.
We came to this position in the textile trade: The dyers were doing their best, working night and day with brain and hand, but they were compelled to give notice to the trade, and we merchants in our turn had to give similar notice, that we could take no risk whatever of the rubbing or of the fastness to light or the fading of goods sent out from this country. To men who for many years had taken a pride in sending away from England the best goods that the world can make, that was a very humiliating position to take up. But there was something very much more serious. The cutting off of our colour meant something far worse, because the raw materials for colour were the raw materials for explosives, and the method of building up colour was the method of building up explosives. There was no wonder that the Government and the nation during the War and after the War said "Never again shall we be taken in this way." We agreed that, whatever the cost, we must have security. We textile men are perfectly prepared to pay our share of that cost. I know no section of the community that is not prepared to pay its share of the cost of security. But security for explosives against the next war is as fully and truly a matter of national defence as the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. It is not fair to put the whole burden upon the colour users, of whom the textile trade is at least 75 per cent. Further, the very worst way of building up this factory which can be turned into an explosives factory at short notice, is in the mean-
time to prevent our textile and other colour users from getting the best colours that the world can produce at the lowest possible price. If that policy is pursued what is to happen? It will mean that by the time we have built up our colour factory we shall not be using any textiles to which to apply the colour.
The Chairman of the Colour Users' Association is a leading dyer in Bradford. He is a great personal friend of my own, but he is not the only authority on this subject. The textile users may be consulted, I think. On 15th December, 1920, the Bradford Merchants' Association, a non-political association of men who represent practically the whole of the export trade in woven wool textiles, and who may be presumed to know what they are talking about, passed the following Resolution:
That while recognising the vital necessity to this country of the manufacture of dye wares, and affirming the full willingness of the merchants of Bradford to bear their share of the necessary cost, this association nevertheless views with alarm the proposal to give to any body, however constituted, the power to prevent the dye users in the textile trade from having the right and opportunity to procure the best dyes in the world, however produced.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: That is a Resolution passed in 1920. The Resolution I read was passed in 1922.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: It was resolved further on the same date
That in view of the fact that it is now over two yean? since the victorious termination of the War, this association declares that it is time the dyeing trade withdrew its declaration that it can take no risk on goods which arise from looseness or fading of colour and that the trade should now undertake to give a standard of dye equal to pre-War.
The answer of the Government within eight days of the passing of that Resolution was to pass this unfortunate Act. That Resolution is now two years old, It would be incredible if I had come here without having verified my authority. Four years after the War we are still in the same humiliating position, that the dyers can take no risk whatever on the fastness or wearing qualities of their dyes.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: But the printers do.

Mr H. H. SPENCER: They may do. I do not want to talk soley about my own
trade. I began to talk about the trade of my own town. I will talk now of my own business, if I may. Three years ago I sent away £2,000 worth of printed delaine. It is a ladies' fabric made of Australian wool, spun, woven, and printed in the Bradford district. It is a cloth in which we have always had the keenest competition with the Mulhouse and Alsatian people. We fought honourably and frankly for nearly 40 years for that trade in the neutral markets of the world. As I said, I got an order from Denmark for £2,000 worth of printed delaine shortly after the War. At the same time my customer bought a similar quantity of printed delaine from Alsace. I do not suppose there was more than £20 or £30 worth of colour in the whole consignment of goods. But the colour ran—what we call bled. I had to allow £l,100 to get the goods passed. That is not the worst of it. Losses we can write off, but trade which brings employment to our people we cannot afford to lose. We have lost that trade to our foreign competitor. I might possibly get it back, but only in one way. I must go to Denmark and I must say, "Give me another chance to do this wool delaine trade with you," and my customer will reply, much as a magistrate would speak to a man in the dock who has been drunk and disorderly and has assaulted the police, "What guarantee will you give that you will not do it again?" My Danish friends will say, "What promise can you give that your goods will not do what they did last time?" I shall say, "The British dyers give no guarantee as to quality or fastness of any kind."
It is a shameful and humiliating position to be put in, and the folly of it is the folly not only of the Dyestuffs Act, but the administration of that Act by the Board of Trade Committee. Last-week, by the gracious permission of my Whips, I went down to Bradford to verify my references, and to make sure that I would not inadvertently lead this House astray. I interviewed leading dyers, leading colour users, including Mr. Sutcliffe Smith, whom the last speaker quoted. I put three questions to them:
Are British dyes to-day as good as the dyes you got from abroad before the War, or as the dyes you can get from Switzerland to-day?
The universal answer was: "They are not as good." The next question was:
Are the prices of British dyes as low as the prices at which you could import similar dyes from Switzerland?
The universal answer was: "The prices are not as low. We are charged as much as 30, 40, 50 and even 100 per cent, higher for British dyes." The telegram I have already quoted is a proof. That is a very important dye which we use in dyeing our wives' navy blue serges and gabardine:? The price in Basle is half the price that the Government is compelling British users; to pay for the British substitute. My third question, and the most serious, was:
Will you dyers now at last give us the pre-War guarantees of fastness of colour and proof against Tubbing.
They said, "We will not give you those guarantees." Do you want any more to condemn this Act? Let me give another instance to prove my argument. The President of the Board of Trade said the other night that he did not know of one single case of unemployment caused by what in the North we call the Stoppage of Industry Act. I can give him real concrete cases of unemployment caused, at any rate, by its sister Act, the Dye-stuffs Act. In normal times in the textile trade when spinning is busy weaving is busy, and dyeing is generally busy. For the last two years we have gone through an unparalleled slump, such as agricultural Members have no conception of, and about which they do not seem to care very much. Out of a total population of something under 300,000 in Bradford, our live register of unemployment came to 56,000. The official in charge said he did not anticipate that this register would grow any bigger, because all the textile employés were on the register. They were not all wholly unemployed, but they were on the dole, some whole time and some part time unemployed. Things now are not so bad as they were. The spinning is not very bad, the weaving is not as bad as it has been for a long time past. Neither is dyeing, but the dyeing is, by a long way, the worst of our staple trades, and that is because the tendency now is towards the loss of our dyeing trade. There are thousands of pieces leaving Bradford undyed and going abroad. When I pointed out that I myself had shipped large quantities of undyed goods, it was put round my constituency that I was sending goods away
to be dyed by the foreigner, which is the very thing I have been trying not to do. What is to be done, if my customer comes to me and says, "Because your dyes are inferior, because you will give me no guarantee, because you charge me twice as much as I can get the work done for abroad, I may buy your goods, but your dyers shall have no share in the prosperity"?
Tha labour employed in our dye works is mainly male adult labour—the fathers. of families—and the labour in our spinning and weaving works is mainly women labour, and the unemployment of male labour, that of the fathers of families, is the worst sort of unemployment one can have. What we want in our trade is tranquillity and security. As for tranquillity, let me call attention to a detail which, though only a detail, is one of the things that break one's heart in business and ultimately ruin a business. We get our range of shades, the newest colours we can get, and I can tell you, notwithstanding all the boasting of British dye-makers, if you want to get new, fine colours you have to go to Switzerland for them even to-day. We get that range of colours, the best we can, and we send our samples all over the world, but we have no security when our orders come home that we can get the dyes to dye them with. I have here a folio of 25 pages which would be a somnolent piece of reading to put before the House. This folio contains only the correspondence relating to one single application on one single dye which is not made in this country at all. The correspondence" is not confidential, and any Member who likes may see it. It took the Board of Trade Licensing Committee six months, after repeated refusals, to allow these people to import this particular colour—sulphon violet. Then they discovered that the dye was not made in England at all, and allowed these people to import what they wanted. Meanwhile the unfortunate hosiery trade which wanted the sulphon violet have had to go on staining the cuticle of the fair wearers of the hose. I am quite sure the feminine portion of the population will be in favour of getting fast dyes. The correspondence to which I refer began on the 6th August, 1921, and it finished on the 13th February last, when the Board of Trade Licensing Committee at last discovered that they could grant the licence, and when the
next is required all the same rigmarole will have to be gone through over again.
May I put one argument to the President of the Board of Trade, and it is a very serious argument. I did not come here to make a political speech but to make a trade speech. It is a most fatal and mistaken policy on the part of the Board of Trade to try to knock down the Swiss industry, at any rate, pending the creation of our own, and that is still pending. The Swiss helped us during the War. There is not much gratitude about it, I know, because they did very well out of it and made huge profits, but they supplied us with a very large portion of the dyes we could not make ourselves and could not get from Germany. It is almost incredible to think that the policy of the Board of Trade is to favour the products of the German dye-makers as against the Swiss. One could not believe it without actual experience. We get certain reparation dyes from Germany, and that is about all the reparation we do get. We get about eight per cent, of the output of the German dye-making factories. One would suppose that the licensing Committee would sell dye-users these dyes at a price not higher than the price at which Germany is selling them to the world. Nothing of the sort. They sell them at the price at which the British dye-makers tell them that they can make the same dyes, which may be, and often is, twice as high a price as the Germans are selling them at. Then there comes along the Swiss, and you want to import some sulphon violet or green S or some other dye, and they say, "No, you cannot import it because we have stock of German reparation dyes," and thus it would seem that the policy of the Board of Trade Committee is to penalise the friendly Swiss for the benefit of the German dye-maker. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, because I wish to refer to the triumph of his policy of Protection. I believe he is a sincere Protectionist. Let me congratulate him upon the successful introduction of Protection into "this country, but it is Protection upside down; it is Protection inside out. It is a specific protection of the Roubaix textile manufacturer against me in my home trade, und I will tell the House why.
I was particular to verify my facts about this particular green dye, because
it is a dye that every one of us here can understand. It is largely used for dyeing ladies' costume serges and ladies' gabardines, and we all know that our wives have been wearing these for years. I am a maker of these things, in addition to being a merchant, and my greatest competitors in the London market—and in the intervals of attending to the affairs of State in this House, I spend a little time doing business in the City—my greatest competitors in the London market for serges and gabardines are my friends from Roubaix. I agree with my whole heart with the Prime Minister that it is of the greatest necessity that we should work with France, but I begin to jib when it gives 2d. a yard advantage to my competitors in my home markets. The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) told us it only came to 2½ or 5 per cent, on the value of the cloth. It is very strange how the calculation works out in regard to this Hssamine green, as it is called. The French are buying this Swiss dye at 3s. 9d. a 1b. in Basle, and we are buying a substitute, which may or may not be as good, for 7s. 6d. a lb. in Bradford, and that difference in the dye is equal to 2½ per cent, protection in favour of the Roubaix manufacturer as against the Bradford manufacturer. There is an absolutely concrete case of my workpeople being thrown out of work.
I have talked far too long for a first speech, but let me say two sentences in conclusion. We in the textile trade are not wanting to shirk our share of the cost. We will pay, as we have paid. I have known very few men grumble at the share of the taxes they have to bear, but we say, Let the security be borne on the Estimates; let us know what we have got to pay, what it is costing this country; put it on the Estimates, and do not hide it in a dye vat. My second argument is this. I have prepared a most elaborate case and forgotten it, but I think I have shown to this House that we are not getting the best dyes, and we are not getting them at the world's lowest price, and while we are prepared to pay our fair share of security, while we are prepared to do our duty like men and like citizens in carrying the country's burdens, we say that depriving us of the best and cheapest dyes in the textile trade is just as silly as burning down the Chinese house in order to get roast pork. Up in
the North, in Lancashire and Yorkshire, at any rate, we may be a stubborn folk, but I think we are rather self-reliant. There is—and I am proud to say there is—to-day a better feeling between capital and labour in the wool textile trade than I have ever known before, and I can speak with 38 years' work in that trade. We have been through the valley of tribulation together, masters and men, employers and workpeople; firms which had existed for generations have gone down, others have been helped out by their creditors and are still paying compositions. Our work people, who have never known what it was to be out of a job in their lives, have been on the "dole" or have been partly employed. We ask for no subsidies. We do not come to this House, like gentlemen in some parts of it, to say that because our trade is bad, because this is bad and that is bad, why does not the Government do something for us.
All we ask of the Government is to get off our backs and to let us work out our own salvation. Last week, as I said, I went home to Bradford to verify my references and my facts, and I did more. I went to my colleagues of the Bradford Merchants' Association, and they sent me back with the unanimous repetition of that resolution of two years ago, that all we want is that the Government should get off our backs. We are proud of our skill—not my skill, but the skill of our own workpeople, the best in the world, the skill of our manufacturers and designers—and I have a little vanity in my skill as a parasite. We have faith in the high destiny, which I believe that England's shopkeepers have held. It is the English shopkeepers who produce the good;: that bring the food for our people, and if you will only let us alone to do it, I have faith that we shall continue.

Mr. IRVING: If it be true that only two men ever thoroughly mastered the intricacies of international exchanges, and that one of these is in the churchyard and the other is in an asylum, I think it might easily be said that if a man set himself to try to find out exactly what could and could not be done under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it certainly, as one listens to the Debate, to what is said in its favour and what is equally said against it, is a puzzle for the plain
man to understand on which side the truth of the argument lies. But, at any rate, when one hears, as I did hear, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade arguing for the retention, of this Measure, not on business grounds-at all, but almost entirely on the grounds of State necessity, and as an insurance, not against war, as he put it, but as an insurance that if a war does take place we shall not be in the same hopeless position as we were during the recent War, one has this thought in one's mind, especially as the right hon. Gentleman followed that up by arguing that the way to prevent war was to be ready for war. To me, that was one of the most amazing statements to which any man could give utterance, in the face of what we have just passed through in the way of war. More than one famous General, who, whatever he may or may not know about dyestuffs and the Safeguarding of Industries Act, must have known very much more about war than the right hon. Gentleman, went into that War with that opinion, and they came out of the War at the end with just the contrary opinion, with the hard and fast opinion that it was the fact of the world preparedness for war that inevitably brought that War upon us. You have only to look at what competition in preparation for war means to realise that, as inevitably as one day follows another, that competition must inevitably result, and docs result, in the clash of arms and all the horrors of war.
The right hon. Gentleman also appealed for some sense of proportion, and I had in my mind the fact that what he was asking an insurance against was the possible happening of something that our men wish not to happen, which certainly does not happen very often, and which the best authorities say we cannot expect to happen under another ten or twelve years. He is asking for an insurance by building on the experience of a war that is past, with a full knowledge, as he must have, that whenever such a war takes place again the experience of the past will amount to very little indeed, and his sense of proportion is to sacrifice the interests of a great trade in this country for the sake of providing for that possible contingency. His sense of proportion allows him to run counter to the expressed opinion of the men who have the interests of the trade of the country in their hands and their brains. I was going
to say that no one in Lancashire will be found to speak in favour of this Act. Probably that is an exaggeration, but, at any rate, in my own constituency, at the Election we polled 44,000 votes out of a possible 50,000, and not one single vote was cast that was not cast for the repeal of this Act. That is not unique so far as Lancashire is concerned. Even visitors who come to us feel the dominant influence of this opinion. In my election, I had, as one of my opponents, a candidate who, 18 months prior to the Election, came to the town and announced himself what he was pleased to call a Fair Trader, which, we all know, is simply another name for Protectionist. He was an avowed supporter of the late Prime Minister when he came in the first place as a candidate. After the glorious burst-up of the Coalition, he changed over his allegiance to the present Prime Minister, but when he came down to contest the election, he explained that he had not meant anything in the way of Protection when he called himself a Fair Trader. His election address paid far more attention to the vital question of Free Trade, as he called it, than mine did. His speeches were interlarded day after day, and night after night, with appeals for support to be given to him as a Conservative, because he was a Free Trader, and, furthermore, he promised that, if returned to this House, he would vote for the repeal of this Act we are discussing to-night. I am not at all sorry we did not give him the duty, but, at any rate, he can have this assurance, that I shall carry out that duty for him with a great deal of satisfaction.
The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) made an appeal to us on this side not to repeal this Act, and, as I understood him to say, ruin the great textile industry. He said he could not understand us. What I, too, cannot understand is, how a man who is not a textile manufacturer at all? can have the audacity to speak for a trade which, as he must know as well as I do, is overwhelmingly opposed to the whole business. What happened in my town happened, probably, to every Conservative candidate who stood in Lancashire. Not one of them would stand for this theory of Protection. I do not suppose manufacturers of Lancashire show that stern opposition to this particular Act,
because in itself this Act does so very much, but they, like the President of the Board of Trade, recognise that there is a history behind this Act, though they, unlike he, do not accept the origin as the Paris Resolution. The history of this Bill is a very old one, and, prior to the War, many a well-contested battle had been fought by the people against the vested interests who sought to overthrow the system of Free Trade in this country, and to substitute for it the doctrine of Protection. Prior to the War, it almost appeared as though the battle had been finally won. Just before the War, you scarcely ever heard anyone raise his voice in favour of a return to a Protective system. We are told that this Measure was forced upon us by the issues arising out of the War. I am not of that opinion at all I am of opinion that the same vested interests, who at one time almost despaired of being able lo pursue the line of policy which would serve those interests, have seen in the War, and its issues, an opportunity to revive this idea of Protection, and the War issues are merely an excuse for the beginning of a policy which certainly those who advocate this Measure do not intend to rest there.
It is that, after all in my judgment, which makes the great cotton industry as a whole so averse to this particular Measure, and so insistent in the demand for its repeal. The Government have promised to allow Protection as an issue to lie dormant, in a state of tranquillity, but for how long one does not know, and as, in our mind, these Measures are the commencement of a policy intended to be pushed to a very large issue, we are interested in their repeal. So, in my judgment, the object of the other side is not so much in favour of the retention of this particular Measure, as the hope that upon the heel of this Measure they may put other Measures upon the Statute Book, and accomplish that which they failed to do before the War. I am not going to argue the merits and the demerits of the Act in detail. I cannot claim to have the necessary knowledge to do that. But I do claim to have some judgment, and to be animated by some understanding, and the desire for fair play. I am well aware that there are Free Trade fanatics on the one side and Tariff Reformers on the other, of whom, I as one of my Communist friends said
the other day, nothing will change their opinion.
I think the hon. Member who just sat down said that the cotton industry was responsible for 43 per cent, of our export trade, and it is amongst the most important industries in the whole nation. Furthermore, I am given to understand it employs a greater amount of labour than almost any other industry you can mention. When one can come to this House and say, without fear of contradiction, that that trade, world-wide in its ramifications, meets its competition from all parts of the world and asks for no protection for itself, has built up that trade upon the lines of free intercourse and free interchange of commodities all over the world, and that that same body of men, those who built the trade up in the past, and those who to-day are carrying it on throughout the whole area of Lancashire feel as I say; when you know, as you must know, that, at any rate, there are millions of people in that county who are not adherents to either the Liberal or the Labour parties, but are even to-day adherent to the Conservative party—that party for which the Government speaks—when one can say that they alike, for in my constituency 40,000 votes were cast between three of us, everyone pledged to vote for the repeal of this Measure, then the matter puts itself outside the category of fanaticism on either side, and resolves itself, after all, into the fact that these men who know business and understand it, understand that it has not been by Protection but by organisation, efficiency, and the determination of the trade itself that it has been brought to the success to which it has been brought.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: When this Act was a Bill in the last Parliament, many of us—and I was one—supported the Government in every Clause and line, and helped them to get the Bill through. I will tell the House, if I may, why I, at any rate, supported the Bill so that it might become an Act. I will say now frankly, too, that I am not satisfied with the working of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But I do not wish hon. Members opposite to read into that observation of mine anything I do not mean. I am still in accord with the principle of the Act, but, as I say, I am not now satisfied with the administrative working of it.
I do not blame the officials of the Board of Trade for that. They have had to do their duty. The Act is worded in a certain way, and the administration of it must be carried out in accordance with what is now decided to be the interpretation of that wording. I have listened to all of the speeches made this afternoon and evening, beginning with the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and ending with the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. H. Spencer)—an excellent speech if I may be allowed to say so—taking in many trade aspects, and containing a good deal of valuable information. But the point of the hon. Member was the aspect of the case adopted by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, and it was that of the case put by the hon. Member for Salford. It was not however the aspect of the case that was in my mind and which was, so to speak, the jumping off place from which I supported the Bill. They took the standpoint of the wealth of the nation. I took the standpoint then, and I take the standpoint now, of the strength and defence of the nation, not the wealth, not the trade side at all. When the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Irving) talks about it not being right to prepare for war, that is a view on which he and I will not agree. I am just as peaceful a man as he is, but I prefer that I shall have a weapon beside me if occasion requires. I am not aggressive any more than he is, but it was the strength of the nation to prepare to defend it that I had in my mind. I had not at all in my mind certain of the articles which I see are now-covered by the Schedule of the Act.
At the time to which I refer, when we helped the Bill through the House, I had in my mind my experience in the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions. I will tell the House two or three things which are in my mind. I had to look after the optical instruments used by our troops at the front. Besides, we did not know which way to turn for laboratory glass. For this reason I supported the Bill; it was not a question with me whether money would or would not be made out of the chemical glass if it was manufactured here. We wanted laboratory glass for our steel works, chemical test tubes and the like, Florence flasks, beakers, and so on. It seemed to me
desirous, indeed necessary, that we should produce these articles in this country so that they should be at hand when needed. We needed optical glass for prisms and lenses for our troops at the front. We needed dial sights, range finders, trench periscopes and binoculars. Before the War the annual production all over the world was never more than 50 tons, and little was made here, but when instruments to the value of £30,000,000 depended upon this little basis of optical glass there was something to be said for having it at hand. Again I say I was not considering the matter from the commercial or the trade side, but from the point of view of our men in the trenches, who were continually asking us to send them range finders, binoculars, periscopes and so on. Why could we not get these things for the War Office? We did our best to get them. We could not make them. We had to send round to all the small shops possible in England and France to get small lots of optical glass—we had no supply here for prisms and lenses.
Before the War we had given up producing this glass, and by a method of restriction, which I went into at the time, I discovered that this German optical unwrought glass imported into England could not be sold here before the War except to make certain things. Therefore, when I came down to support the Bill, I came to support something for the strength and not the wealth of the country. I had in mind laboratory and optical glass and optical instruments, and similarly dyes, not because dyes ought to be made more cheaply for our textile trade, but because they were the basis of our high explosives. I had something to do with high explosives, working underthe illustrious Lord Moulton, about a book of whose life I have read a review in the "Times" to-day—and there you will see something about T.N.T., and find how we were paralysed for lack of dyes. The dye industry was a basic industry for our explosives, and I felt it absolutely necessary to have a future hold upon it. I still feel so, so that if ever we have the misfortune to have to fight again we must have the material to defend ourselves.
But I never thought when I was dealing with that Bill that we should find such things imported into the interpretation of
the Schedule as I here see before me: 6,000 various chemicals and other petty items. It is quite true to say that the matter is under the impartial administration of the Board of Trade. It is quite true to say that we have set up a number of small industries such as that of fine chemicals, but that was not the basis of my support of the Bill. I was not thinking of the commercial side. The question with me was not one of profit in industry particularly. I was thinking of the strength of the nation when it might need to defend itself again, not what might be made, a little more or a little less, out of trade. To my mind the Bill has degenerated in its object. The Government may not be very pleased with me for saying so, but I cannot help it. I make no question about the principle. I am a Tariff Reformer. There is no question about that, but I consider that in the working of the Act it has degenerated. It has widened out its scope in a way never intended by me. I shall not vote for the Amendment put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley because I am in favour of the principle of the Act. I supported it. I am now not against it. But the scope of the Act, I say, must be narrowed to its original limits. Its interpretation must be put on narrower ground. Its administration needs overhauling. If it does not get it, the Act will create such a reaction, and public opinion will be so outraged, that the very proper objects for which the Act was passed will be defeated. I hope the Government will take steps without any delay to see that this Act is put back into such a position that we shall not again have to discuss dolls' eyes, fabric gloves and thousands of petty chemicals, instead of key and pivotal industries in the light of the necessities disclosed by war conditions, for the position disclosed by the War was impregnable against partisan criticism or attack. The scope now widened by administration, has gravely weakened the Act. Hence the present attack on it.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: After the very war-like speech to which we have just listened, I should like to deal with the trade aspect of this question. If the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) likes to dig his head in the sand like an ostrich, and erect a high tariff in order to keep foreign goods out so that we shall remain ignorant of the progress in the
manufacture of glass in other countries, I do not wish to deprive him of that privilege. I think this is an Amendment which will commend itself to the majority of hon. Members of this House. I say that because hon. Members on the Labour Benches above the gangway are entirely in favour of Free Trade; the Liberal Members are in favour of Free Trade, and there are a number of hon. Members sitting in front of me who are also in favour of Free Trade, and I mean Free Trade unreservedly.
Hon. Members sitting on the Government side, I understand, are interested in agriculture. From what I heard about agriculture in my own constituency, I should say that there is almost a unanimous opinion that this Bill should be repealed. Those interested in agriculture in my constituency asked, why should they have to pay through the nose for everything they have to consume in the way of machinery and other things they require, when they are not protected in regard to the produce which they put upon the market? For these reasons I anticipate that we shall receive the approval in the Division Lobby of a large majority of the hon. Members sitting on the opposite of the House, and I hope that we shall be able to carry this Amendment.
9.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has rather disappointed me, because not more than a year ago I attended a dinner in connection with the China Association at which he was the guest of the evening, and a very honoured and welcome guest he was. On that occasion he delivered a very elementary lecture to the gentlemen assembled, upon the Balance of Trade. He told us how exports from one nation were balanced by the imports from another nation, and with joy and rapture he disclosed the discovery that trade went from one nation to another, not always direct, but sometimes in a circular way. He said that it was not necessary that America should ship an equivalent value of goods back to China, but that she might send cotton to Great Britain, and that in return we might send cotton goods to China. This was told to 200 or 300 gentlemen who had grown grey not only in the theory but in the practice of trade, and I said to myself then that a young man with that amount of assurance will go far at any rate in the political world. The right hon. Gentle-
man was then in charge of that, useless excrescence of the Board of Trade, the Overseas Trade Department, but he now occupies a much more important post. The Safeguarding of Industries Bill has been dealt with very fully, and I have heard no answer to our arguments. I would like now to say a word or two in connection with the Dyes Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, being a merchant I am, I suppose, a parasite, and I am a parasite not only in this country but abroad. My attention was drawn to this question by a report which my firm got from one of our travellers in Java. The yarns which are now being dyed locally in Java are dyed almost exclusively with German dyes. We sent our representative to Java to find out how it was that the export trade in dyed yarns had almost come to an end, and he reported that the importation of dyed yarns had been almost entirely cut out by the locally-dyed goods, the colours being just as good as those they used to import. The firm in Java that used to import these dyed yarns state that they have found competition so keen that they have been obliged to drop the trade.
I then looked up the trade statistics, and I found that in the exports of dyed goods as compared with grey goods two years ago and this year there had been a tremendous increase in the export to Java of grey yarns and unbleached and white goods and a great decrease in the export of dyed goods. What does that mean? It means that we are losing this dyeing trade. What is the sense of building up a dye industry if we are killing the dyeing trade in this country? I have taken out the figures. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question put to him by me to-day, referred me to a book which I am sure hon. Members will not take the trouble to look at. I will give the figures. In 1920 we exported 2,077,000,000 square yards of grey and white piece goods, and in 1922 the total was 2,310,000,000 square yards. The exported dyed goods decreased from 1,757,000,000 square yards to 1,098,000,000. If you take the unbleached yarn, the figures are 107,000,000 pounds weight, and this has increased to 158,000,000, but the dyed yarn has decreased from 21,000,000 pounds weight to 16,000,000 pounds weight. I have worked out the difference in
the value of this export trade to us on the basis of to-day's prices, and I find that if we were exporting to-day the same proportion as we did in 1920, the value of our exports would have been £25,000,000 more than they were two years ago, and we should have had the purchasing power of £25,000,000 more than we have got under this precious Dyes Bill. There has been reference made to a German export tax. The other day, when we were discussing this question, the right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), when challenged as to how Germany was to pay—whether in slaves, or gold, or goods—said, "Of course we cannot have slaves, and we cannot get gold," but he evaded the question of goods. I should like to know how we are going to get the money out of Germany in that way. The hon. Member avoided that issue, and so, too, did the Prime Minister. It is no use saying that Germany can pay reparations by means of an export tax, but you must also tell in what form they are going to make the payment. We are frequently told that if we only have Protection in this country we shall get stability and certainty, and know where we are. I wish to suggest that that is not the case. Take the United States of America, which has been a very highly protected country for the last century. Let mo read to the House two extracts from letters we received from our friends in New York during the last year—which show what is their point of view with regard to stability and certainty. The writer says in the first letter:
Until the tariff question is settled we hardly look for much business, and even then, if, as is proposed, the President has the right to modify the duties according to his idea for the protection of domestic industries, importers will never know what their goods are going to cost.
In the second letter we are told that
Farmers and manufacturers want the export demand, and at the same time are demanding a prohibitive tariff, hut we doubt if business will settle until this question is out of the way.
As a matter of fact, it is clear there is great uncertainty, and the whole trade of the country will be held up until they know whether there is going to be a Protectionist or a Free Trade Government. You will never get stability under these circumstances. Apart from that, think of the lobbying and corruption to
which this system gives rise. Protection prepares the forcing ground for all that is noisome, rank and corrupt in political life. We do not want that in this country We have a supreme and unrivalled standard of integrity and incorruptibility in our public service. The moment you get Protection you will begin to lower the standard of that public service. If we do not pass this Amendment we are running the danger of lowering the standard of public life in this country. We must sweep away all the barriers and restrictions that hamper trade between this and other nations. There is no hope of a revival, permanent or substantial, in the trade of this country, and no hope of the removal of the present discontent unless we do that.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member has spoken in a rather mixed attitude of mind with regard to American trade in connection with tariff developments in the United States. But he did not indicate to the House that the present agitation has been to bring about substantially increased tariffs. He did not point out that this objectionable system of Protection in the interests of the country and in the interests of the workpeople has been part of the national economic policy of the United States for a long period of time, and that there is no indication that the United States are going to part with that policy at the present time. We have had a most interesting series of speeches, and I, as a rather new Member of the House, feel a little diffident in following those great guns who have spoken from the other fide. We had, first of all, the very striking, logical, complete and exhaustive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I am sure that every Member of this House was delighted to hear that speech for its form and structure, although it erred miserably on the side of political wisdom. We are glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back in this House, and, I am sure, look forward to many more interesting speeches from him. But I would ask how it is that in this House, on every occasion that presents itself, the Liberal and Labour Members take every opportunity they see of attacking any Measure whatever safeguarding British industries. They are now asking that the latest step in that direction shall not become part of
the policy of the country. I was particularly struck this afternoon with the remarkable speech delivered by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond). Hon. Members of this House will recall that when the present Act was going through the House as a Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was eloquent beyond measure in supporting it. But this afternoon he asked that this piece of experimental legislation shall be pulled up by the root, although the Act has only been in operation for little more than a year, and Part II of it for only about three months. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite who were responsible for bringing the Act into operation in the first place now desire to destroy it before it is possible to say exactly of what benefit it has been to the country.
The right hon. Gentleman laid down a series of very striking propositions in regard to protective legislation. He was fertile beyond words in his acquaintance with the new economics. Let me sum up the propositions which he submitted to the House in support of this Bill. In the first place, he said it is quite true that Germany must export her manufactures in order to pay reparations, but he did not want her to do it at the expense of the manufacturers of this country. He said, further, that it was only fair to expect that our other Allies would join with us in taking the German output in order to enable Germany to pay the reparations. Secondly, he said that the Bill was an attempt to prevent the repetition of a catastrophe which was threatening at the early part of the War. The right, hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), whose eloquent advocacy of war measures saved this country in a time of dire necessity, said to-night how anxiously he anticipated its demise. That appeal's to be the attitude of most of the statesmen, opposite. A Measure absolutely essential to the safety of the country in war time is, when we are not entirely out of the zone of war, to be set aside, and we are told that we ought to begin legislation for repealing it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea also said that the Bill did not create a monopoly, that it would only become operative when industries were seriously threatened; and he went on to say that the German manufacturer was operating on the difference between the two values—the local value and the ex-
change value—of the mark. He said that until stabilisation was brought about there was no hope of the manufacturers of this country being able to compete successfully with those of Germany, and he proceeded to urge that this moderate and reasonable measure of protection for essential industries should be passed by this House. It was passed by a large majority, and I venture to submit to the House that, in spite of the criticism that has been advanced this evening, the officers of the Board of Trade have, since the Measure came into operation, done everything they could to make it as easy as possible for people in this country engaged in trade to take advantage of its provisions.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are always prepared to attack Measures which aim at the safeguarding of British industries would perhaps have a word to say on some of the industries affected. I should like to draw their attention to a trade that is particularly affected at the present moment by German competition, namely, the machine tool trade. There is a warehouse within five minutes' walk of this House, stocked with 30 different kinds of German machines in direct competition with our own manufacturers in this country. I will give details of some of them with their comparative prices. Take, for example, a machine known as a vertical turret lathe of 36-inch capacity of the Bullard type. That lathe, which was copied by the Germans during the War, is now being made by Hartmann of Chemnitz, and it is offered, delivered in any part of this country, at £480. The American price to-day for that lathe, delivered c.i.f. in this country, is £l,779. How is the British lathe maker to compete against the German with that margin between them—largely due to the collapsed exchange of Germany. The actual cost of producing that machine in this country, with a reasonable profit sufficient to keep the industry going and the workpeople employed, is £1,400. Moreover, I say advisedly that the German machine at £480 is of just as good quality as the American machine at £1,779. Then take what is called a gear hobbing machine. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the other side know what that is. It is used for making motor car gears. The pre-War price of that machine, made by Pfeuter of Chemnitz, was £205, delivered in any town in Great
Britain. It can be bought to-day at £150 in Westminster, and the British price for a similar machine capable of doing the same work is £400. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we have no right to take any steps, in the face of unwarrantable competition of that kind, to protect our workpeople by the operation of a Measure of the kind that we are discussing to-night I Then take the case of a drilling machine made at Dϋsseldorf. That is being made for sale in London to-day at £39. A similar machine made in Leicester costs £75 to produce. I should like to know what the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Hill) thinks about that. Will he allow German machines to be indiscriminately brought in to compete with the machines that are being produced by the workpeople in his own constituency?
Take, again, lathes of various types, which are exhibited in the warehouse in question, at from £32 to £150. Lathes of equal quality cannot be produced in this country, with any sort of living margin to the manufacturer, at less than twice the price. Take towns like Keighley and West Renfrew, where these industries are of considerable dimensions. I should like to know from hon. Members on the other side of the House, and particularly the hon. Members representing those constituencies, how can they oppose a Measure of this kind, which gives protection in some small degree to the British producer, in face of the fact that the workpeople are out of employment in their own Divisions? Taking all the whole series of small tools—lathe chucks, drill chucks, gear cutters, twist drills, hacks or blades—all these things are coming into this country at the present moment at less than half the price at which the British manufacturer can buy the raw material for producing them; and the curious fact is that all the German machine tool manufacturers are fully employed, whereas our machine tool manufacturers to-day are only employing one-tenth of the number of workpeople that they ought to be employing.

Mr. LEE: On a point of Order. I fail to see what is the connection between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Fitzroy): I think the hon. Member is quite in order.

Mr. HANNON: Thank you very much, Sir. I submit that, in pleading for some measure of extended safeguards for the industries of this country, which are being ruined by unfair competition under collapsed exchanges, I am entirely in order. I would say, in conclusion, that there is too much of the academic and cosmopolitan quality introduced into arguments on economics on the other side of the House. It would be much better for the House and the country, and for industry, if we attached more importance to the practical side of this question. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side have repeatedly said in their speeches to-night that they were dealing with the practical and departing from the academic; but the number of practical arguments brought forward in favour of repealing this Measure, or even of adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea, for appointing a Joint Committee to consider it, have been nil. There has not been a single practical argument proposed to-night in favour of the repeal of this Act. Xo evidence has been given by any hon. Gentleman on the other side of a single person having been displaced from his employment by the operation of the Act. On the other hand, we know of the series of industries which have been started, or which have had new life instilled into them, since the Act came into operation, and the numbers of people who have found thereby opportunities of employment Is it seriously suggested that a little over 12 months ago you were to ask the manufacturers of this country to enter upon responsibilities and to invest capital in highly-skilled and complex operations and that, a year or 15 months afterwards, you should tell them that whatever safeguard you gave them then is going to be taken away. The whole thing is monstrous, and most unfair on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, for whose wisdom, outside politics, I have the most profound respect. I am delighted that he has come back into the House. I am only sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to whom we are all so much attached, has identified himself with an academic proposition of this extraordinary quality, which would directly inflict an injury on a number of
industries which have been started under the aegis of this Measure and whose workpeople would be debarred from the opportunity of making a living if effect were given to the Amendment he has proposed.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am sure every Member of this House, in whatever part of it he or she may sit, whatever may be his opinions or dispositions on the subject-matter of this Debate, has enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. For one reason, he has that fortunate gift, which the gods give to few, of expressing his most violent criticisms in the accents of charm. He also has, what few of us possess, the courage to spend most of his speech in taking what I venture to call the outside edge of the subject before the House. Some of us, destitute of that valour and fortune, have to keep ourselves, in the few minutes in which we venture to intrude upon the House, to the very centre and core of the Resolution. The Amendment is for the repeal of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and others which are of a protective character, which have been passed in the last Parliament: and the Amendment not before the House technically, but relevant to the issue before the House, is the Amendment by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond), which asks for an inquiry by a Committee of both Houses into the operation and administration of this Act. I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), so thoroughly persuaded of the righteousness and benefit of his cause, would not have shrunk from an inquiry into it. I should have thought he would have welcomed an inquiry by both Houses of Parliament to snow what benefits were conferred by the Act.

Mr. HANNON: Too soon.

Sir R. ADKINS: It cannot be too soon to average persons who have not the pleasure of agreeing with him. I regret that, but it is not altogether unexpected. It is better to have some partial and secondary benefit inquired into when the welfare of the whole community is affected.

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: On a point of Order. The hon. Member says the Amendment is moved by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A.
Mond).I understand that is quite in-accurate, and that that is not the Amendment.

Sir. R. ADKINS: I said nothing of the kind.

Sir G. HAMILTON: You will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

Sir R. ADKINS: Possibly, by exceptional good fortune, I may have the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton) for the few moments that I desire to speak.

Sir G. HAMILTON: We shall read the OFFICIAL REPORT in the morning.

Sir R. ADKINS: I am very glad to find my hon. Friend has such good reading. Meanwhile, the House will forgive me if I do not pursue, the attractive subject of my hon. Friend's personality, but deal with the question before the House. In common with not a few Members who have spoken previously, I should like to state how the immediate position out of which this Motion proceeds appears to me. Four years ago, at the Election of 1918, there were many of us now in the House, and many others, who thought it right, for reasons not primarily connected with economics, but primarily connected with national defence, to adhere to certain political manifestoes, which implied and foreshadowed some legislation with a view to safeguarding those industries which were specially connected with the necessities of our country in time of war. Accordingly, we were bound in honour to give a hearing, and to give at any rate a preliminary support to a Measure which professed to deal with that question. The Safeguarding of Industries Act, so far as regards the first part of it, was brought to this House, supported in this House, and became law on the ground that it was intended and adapted to deal with special needs of the country as a whole revealed by the experience of the War. Those who supported it, and those who opposed it, in many cases did so, as I have said, not on grounds of economics, for what my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley calls theory is merely reason, and I hope he will not remain a stranger to it for long. They supported or opposed it according to their view as to whether it was necessary in the interests of our country, having regard to the liabilities of modern war and of all its conditions.
There was, however, a second part added to the Bill, on the ground of the unique position and the fluctuations of foreign exchanges, to which there was no previous pledge and no previous attitude to which any Member of the House was committed. To-day we are reviewing the whole of that Act of Parliament, the way it has been administered, and what has been learned of its character and implications as they were found when it was at work. For my own part, I have felt, and I never felt more strongly, that the first part of that Act, for which there was, in the minds of many, some warrant in the exceptional needs of the country, has been, in practice and in administration, inflated and extended and brought to work in a way never contemplated by its authors, and which alters its whole character and results. It was only because one is anxious, above all things, to keep any pledge one makes, and cares more for one's honour than anything else, that some of us were prevented from opposing that Act, even in the last Parliament, when we found how it was being worked. It makes some of us, at any rate to-night, feel that, as we have never entangled ourselves in any practical pledge, we are free to-night to act in all honour as we believe to be right in the present circumstances.
I desire at once to say that if the Government are willing to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for West Swansea, and to give us not that Departmental Inquiry by alleged experts to which the President of the Board of Trade, at the end of his speech, so full of cheerful and characteristic complacency, offered us as the irriducable minimum; if, instead of that, the Government—and I ask the Postmaster-General to consider the point I am putting—the full inquiry for which the right hon. Member fer West Swansea asks, then, rather that any obligation should be interpreted in the slightest degree with any strictness as in favour of the person who made it, I, for one, would accept that Amendment, If, however, we are to have no Inquiry, then the issue lies between maintaining the present Act, without explanation, without inquiry and without revision, or voting for the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley. What is the change since that
Act was brought in? When we deal with these hundreds and hundreds of different categories, however ingenious may be the argument derived from some Department or other for enlarging its scope, the further you enlarge its scope the more you add to its complexity, and the further have you got away from those necessities arising from the War which were the only legitimate reasons for that Act going on to the Statute Book at all. I believe when that Bill was first presented to Parliament there was no one, not even the benevolent parent, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who dreamed for a moment that it would be extended in this way, and would get 60 far away from anything which is really a key industry or any administration which has any reasonable relation whatever to the needs of the country in war time. It is a pity the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been here to-day. He treated this bantling of his with an irony which may have been a disguise of affection or may have been a candid expression of what he thought; but, to-day, a judicious and dextrous absence has marked his action in this matter, and although he may be congratulated on that choice, the House is the loser. But we have had, instead, the President of the Board of Trade, and a more illuminating speech than the one he made it would be difficult to imagine—not so much illuminating as to the character of the Act and the way it is administered as to the intentions and ambitions and desires which fill his ingenuous mind. It was a speech as full of Protection as polished and artful English can be—as full of Protection in its own way as the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and now we know, not only from the benches below the Gangway, but from those high in office, in the second eleven, that what informs their mind and inspires their feelings is not the even now limited scope of this Act, but the desire of applying Protection wherever they can. I am not concerned for the future. I remember the pledge of the Prime Minister, that what he and his friends would like to do it would not be desirable to do in this Parliament, and I trust, every man's pledges until I find them inconsistent with what happens. I am not afraid of the future, but those of us who are criticising this Act are anxious, if we can, to minimise, if we cannot destroy, the actual evil of what has happened.
May I give one or two illustrations? In the first place, the first part of the Act applies to hundreds of things which were never contemplated and which now do, as a matter of fact, embarrass and interfere with the free flow of trade and commercial relations. Then the second part of the Act is applied to all kinds of things in a way which it is extremely difficult to understand or to explain. When I say there is some evil influence behind the administration of this Act, I am not accusing any one Minister or civil servant of conscious wrongdoing. It may be that the traditions of the Treasury with regard to anything which imposes a tax compel them to extend that tax as widely as possible, and it may be that the traditions of she Board of Trade, officered so far as this House is concerned by convinced Protectionists, leads them also to extend the operations of it as far as possible. But whatever it be, in actual fact and in full operation the Act is very different from what was expected by those who introduced it and what was expected by those who were Members of this or the other House when it first became law. Let mc give a couple of illustrations. There is the question of duties on glass intended for illumination. By some extraordinary Departmental absurdity, that has been ruled not to apply to glass which is required for oil lamps, but to apply to glass imported for the purpose of gas or electric light lamps. This surely shows the most meticulous and parental care for the use of light when once it is set going. In the vast bulk of our great towns, in those streets which are inhabited by artisan populations, there is far more use of gas than there is of oil, and for some reason or other the German terror, which gets on the nerves of the Protectionists, leads them to guard against the use of imported glass for gas while it leads them to admit it wholeheartedly if it is employed for oil. Such are the absurdities of the Act.
Again we are threatened on Wednesday with an Order for putting penalties on the introduction of foreign gas mantles, and that at a time when through no party action, through no political action, but through the advice and the authority of perfectly impartial scientists, gas in this country is now supplied everywhere according primarily to its heat value and not according primarily to its light value, and under circumstances in which incan-
descent burners are absolutely essential if persons are to get a maximum of light from what is supplied and for the purpose of bolstering up a comparatively new industry which has nothing to do with the key industry at all, which has grown during the last four years without any artificial help. I suppose one could imagine no other reason which has even a shadow of excuse. To do that you are going to increase the cost of lighting in the house of practically every working man in the urban parts of the country. Is that to help the country? Is that to strengthen the country against emergencies in the future? Those of us who are bound to criticise this Measure and who are, if the Government will not meet us with regard to a full inquiry, bound to vote with my right hon. Friend, may be legitimately the objects of some share of the indefinite sarcasm that we have heard from many Members on that side. It may or may not be deserved. We care for our country as much as hon. Members opposite. We know, as they know, that the interests of the whole community are different from, or sometimes antagonistic to, those of the groups of petty producers, and we say that in all of these issues that arise on these Acts the one possible reason arising out of the War has been so overlaid with extensions and inflations as to no longer dominate the situation. That being so, in the absence of the Government accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Swansea, I shall with the greatest heartiness, confident that I am doing nothing inconsistent with what I have done; in this House or in the-last, vote with my right hon. Friend, because I am confident that in these matters the path of Free Trade is that which will lead, not only to commercial prosperity, but to the security of my country.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I have had the privilege of listening to almost the whole of this Debate and I am certain, whatever view any of us take upon this much-debated question, we at least recognise that a great deal of cogent argument has been applied to the discussion. With regard to the speech we have just heard, the conclusion did not seem to me at all necessarily to follow from the premises. The hon. Member is one of those, who supported this legislation in the beginning.

Sir R. ADKINS: Only part of it.

Sir R. HORNE: It may be necessary that some tightening up of administration should be performed, and I have not the slightest doubt that the matters to which he has directed attention will prove useful to those who are carrying on the administration of the Act, but why it should result in the complete tearing up of it from any point of view of logic or argument I entirely fail to follow. I was intensely interested in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). It presented a very formidable argument, and the case which he stated was one to which we are bound to give the most urgent attention. The right hon. and learned gentleman is, however, a past master in the statement of cases, and it would indeed be an impoverished case which he could not make plausible or even dignify, and perhaps adorn. The chief interest of his argument was that it did not proceed along any very definite or regular lines. He seemed to stand alternately upon one leg, and then upon another.

Mr. J. JONES: One at a time.

Sir R. HORNE: That is a somewhat precarious position. You are very easily knocked off that stand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt, in the greater part of his argument with the defects in administration, and the difficulties and impediments put in the way of obtaining goods from the Customs House, and other matters of that kind, but the real gravamen of his argument every now and then appeared, and certainly it emerged with great clearness at the end of his speech. The real belief which the right hon. Gentleman holds is that under no circumstances should you over in this country, by an import duty, seek either to initiate or to sustain an industry. That is his proposition. That is a proposition which the right hon. Gentleman maintained during the War. He differed from his colleagues on the subject. That is a proposition which was rejected by his colleagues at that time, faced by a menace which the consistent adherence to that policy had produced in this country. It was rejected not only by his colleagues but by the House, to whom he presented it. It was rejected by the country in 1918.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No.

Sir R. HORNE: Let me bring the hon. and gallant Member to a later period. It was rejected by the House in the last Parliament. It was rejected again in the General Election from which we have just emerged. [HON. MUMBERS: "No!"] Let my hon. Friends think a moment. I forget the exact number of Independent Liberal candidates who were presented to the constituencies, but I think it was about 400.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: It was 330.

Sir R. HORNE: There was not a single election address presented by any one of these candidates that did not ask for the repeal of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Yet, out of these 330 candidates we have only 60 in this House. I say, with confidence, that this policy was rejected by the country in the last election, and it will be rejected by this House to-night. My right hon. and learned Friend's leader, the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr Asquith) based his argument upon quite a different footing. He rather dwelt upon the deficiencies of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman has a past on that subject, and he hates to be reminded of it, as he indicated this afternoon. He has often accused me of being the father of this Act. If I am the father, then he is the grandfather of it. This is a product of the Asquithian Government.
I need not recall all the circumstances, for I am sure that hon. Members remember them, especially the condition in which we found ourselves in the War through lack of absolutely vital and essential commodities that were required for the presecution of the War. There were things like magnetos which we could not make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Nobody would question that statement who knew the facts. There were things like optical glass, which was required for the sighting of our artillery both on shipboard and on land. For a time we were in a position of imminent danger through the lack of these vital necessities. There were many other things, like tungsten, which was referred to by one hon. Member who made his maiden speech to-day, on which I desire to congratulate him. Then there was the dye industry. I would remind the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley that is was not merely on the questions of munitions that this legisla-
tion was of vital importance. It is perfectly true that the dye industry gave the opportunity for the making of high explosives, in which Germany had enormous advantages.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: She was beaten in the War.

Sir R. HORNE: It is not your fault, We might very easily have lost. I should like to call attention to the question of the dye industry, apart from its value in making munitions. Who were the first people to direct attention to the weakness of our position in regard to the dye industry? It was the dye users of this country. They came to the Government in large bodies demanding that the Government should do something to supply them with a commodity which was absolutely necessary for their continued existence. They said: "Here are 1,500,000 people, absolutely depending upon an adequate supply of dyes. How-are we to live unless dyes can be produced in this country?" It is not merely a question of uses in war, it is a question which is of equal importance in time of peace, and at any time, if you once lose control of some production of dyes, you might easily be held up to ransom by another country which had the power to produce them. I gather that that was the effect of a quotation which was read in the Debate to-day from a speech made by the Chairman of the Dye Consumers' Association, who said that if by any chance we were, now to give up the attempt to produce dyes in this country, and had to depend upon Germany, our great textile trade of this country might be subjected to menace and disaster.
These were the facts which confronted us. What was done? The right hon. Member for Paisley was then Prime Minister. He immediately set up a Committee. Upon that Committee there sat Mr. Reginald McKenna, Mr. Runciman and the present Prime Minister. The report of that Committee was to the effect that it was absolutely necessary to protect the dye industry in this country, if we were in future to have any chance of safety not merely in a state, of war but even in a state of peace, and that the only means by which this could be achieved would be by setting up a system of prohibition and licence. This was the system which was enacted in the Dye
Industries Act. I dare say that the House will remember that the right lion. Member for Paisley, on being confronted with all the pledges of his Government on this matter, not only took no part in the Debate, but took no part in the Division against the Bill.
You may say that the Act has not succeeded. At least, it has had considerable success up till now. You cannot expect it to do everything at once, and I am sure of this, that no man really acquainted with the dye industry, least of all the consumers, would dare to suggest that we should entirely depart from the policy which we then adopted. Upon the question of the other elements of vital necessity, the House is well aware that many different forms of legislation were considered. Ultimately, we arrived at the legislation which is embodied in the present Statute. These provisions have followed strictly on the lines of the Resolutions which were passed in Paris by a Convention of all the Allies. I noticed great impatience on the part of the right hon. Member for Paisley this afternoon when reference was made to these Resolutions, and I do not wonder. But at the time that they were presented to this House he boasted of these Resolutions, and claimed great credit for the fact that they had been drafted by his President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Runciman.
10.0 P.M.
When Mr. Runciman appeared in the House he made a speech in which he asserted with great boldness that as a result of the War we must, look to a change in the whole foundation upon which our economic system had been based, and he ventured to give the House the motto, "Never again." "Never again" has now changed into "Whenever it suits party purposes." I am not much concerned with the particular terms of the Paris Resolutions. What is really important is the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made to the House in recommending them. It was not merely a question of adopting a particular device for defeating the possible attempts of the enemy to ruin our trade, but it was the. whole policy which was indicated in that speech which was important, because there he deplored—which is a matter which I hope the House will keep clearly in view to-night in giving a Vote on this question—the folly which we had shown in the past in leaving ourselves so much at the mercy of other countries in
the production of elements of vital importance. He pointed out that we had been blind, but that now our eyes were opened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dolls' eyes!"] He said, among other things, that it would be a great pity if after the end of the War we had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. But some hon. Members seem to outvie the Bourbons, for their arguments to-day would seem to show that they have learned nothing and they have forgotten everything. I turn for a moment to the particular criticism which has been made on this legislation. I was somewhat interested in the argument which the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment developed, that we were, in this country, initiating a permanent system of economic change, and I struggled to discover in my mind why he should think that that would be the result of the present legislation. After all, the first part of the Safeguarding of Industries Act applies only for five years, and the second part, in so far as it deals with dumping created by depreciated exchange, only lasts three years. It will be in the hands of the House which exists at these times to decide whether it will continue this legislation or another. But I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it has become permanent. That, at least, shows that he does not anticipate that his party will ever again be in charge of the Government.
The right hon. Member for Paisley said that he had always been of opinion that, oven under a Free Trade system, you would be entitled to take measures to defeat any possible dumping, but that the House would want to know whether dumping had actually taken place, and also whether the cure, would not be worse than the disease. But that is exactly what is provided in the Act. Under the provisions of the Bill dumping does not apply automatically. Dumping Regulations are put in force only if, upon the report of a Committee, it should be held that dumping has actually taken place, that employment in this country is seriously and adversely affected, and that the cure would not be worse than the disease. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman desired is specifically provided for in the Statute of which he complains. The right hon. Member for
Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), in moving his Amendment, argued that, for some reason or other, this legislation had caused a rise in prices. I cannot remember that he showed any particular instance in which that had occurred, and my own experience of the Treasury showed that nothing done under this Act is likely to cause any rise in prices. The Free Trade view always works upon the, line of reasoning that all the duty or at least a considerable part of it is added to the cost of the article in the country of consumption. It is assumed that if you put on a tariff, Germany, which would otherwise send you the goods at the best price, sends the goods with the duty added to that price. There is no fallacy greater than that. Let me tell the House what the German practice is and has been since they have been required to pay reparation. The Germans discovered that there were goods being exported from Germany at prices which greatly undercut the prices in the English market, and they saw quite definitely that they were losing a large margin of possible profit on these goods. They set up a Commission, which is still in existence, to regulate the export prices of goods. They have the prices in the English market before them, and instead of selling these goods at something very much less than would otherwise be the case, they put the price just as much lower than the British price as they can afford in order to win the English market.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not in fixing that price they include the amount of the duty?

Sir R. HORNE: What they do is to fix the price so as to undersell the British market, and no more.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Having first added the duty.

Sir R. HORNE: They do not want to lose the English market. Wherever you have an English competitive price, you bring down the German price. That is obvious. So far from the provisions of this tax in any way raising prices to the English consumer, in practice it has been found, as you would expect, that English competition tends to bring clown German prices rather than the other way. The other matter referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the question of unemployment. It is suggested by the
Amendment that this legislation brings about unemployment in this country. Again, no specific instances of the effect upon employment were produced.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: On a point of Order. I gave an instance.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is a new Member, and he should know that he must not be on his feet at the same time as another hon. Member who is speaking. There is now no time for interruptions.

Sir J. SIMON: There were some instances given.

Sir R. HORNE: The only point on the question of unemployment in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley was a statement that there was unemployment in Lancashire, and that you could not say whether some of it was not attributable to the import duty upon fabric gloves. It is very unfortunate for my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that the worst unemployment is not at all in connection with the kind of yarn which is being exported from Lancashire for the purpose of making fabric gloves. Therefore, that argument does not seem to have very much force. The right hon. and learned Member seemed to think that this duty of 33⅓ per cent. in connection with Part II of this Act was put on in some way to stabilise the exchange. No man in his senses ever expected any such result to follow. My right hon. and learned Friend will recollect that it is not the fluctuations in the exchange which make the difficulty about competing in this country with German manufactured products. If you had always the mark in Germany of the same value as in England it would not matter how much it fluctuated; it would not give you any more difficult competition to face. The fluctuation does not cause the difficulty. What causes the difficulty is the difference between the internal purchasing value and the external purchasing value.
The object of the 33⅓ per cent, duty is this: When you have fluctuations in the exchange, they do, of course, create considerable dislocation in Germany in prices. But immediately wages begin to chase prices, and the disparities always are tending to adjust themselves. Although no man would say that 33⅓ per cent, is a scientific figure—we
should be fools if we did—it always tends to give you some advantage at least between the internal purchasing value of the foreign currency and the external purchasing value. That is all you can say for it. But that it does give a certain benefit in that respect is at least proved by the fact that applications have been made by considerable numbers of people to have this duty put upon imported articles for the purpose of giving them at least a chance in their own market of competing with foreign-made material.
It has been suggested in an important speech by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) that we should have an inquiry into the effects of the operation of this Act. Although I am always ready to listen to any suggestion made by such a distinguished business man as the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot acquiesce in that proposal on the present occasion. There are many things which are bad in business, but there is nothing so bad as uncertainty. If you set up an inquiry, the traders of this country will not know where they are; they cannot lay any plans for the future. Now they know that so far as the first part of the Act is concerned there are five years in which this duty will operate, and they know in regard to the second part that there are three years for the duty to operate. I beg the House not to upset the present situation. At present the country is passing through great commercial and industrial difficulties. At least give the trader a chance of knowing where he is. In that way I am perfectly certain that you will be doing your utmost for the welfare of the industries of this country.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: We have listened to an extremely interesting speech from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe it is the first speech that he has delivered for some years except from the Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman made a great many remarkable statements and a great many claims which certainly surprised us on this side of the House. In the first place, he made the remarkable claim that the country had endorsed the Measures which we are discussing to-night. Does he really assert that the electors of this country in the last Election endorsed the principles of the Safeguarding of Industries Act I Are some hon. Members under that impression?

Mr. PETO: I for one am back in this House because of my support of this Act.

Captain BENN: If anything would reconcile me or anyone else to the Safeguarding of Industries Act or anything else, it would be the return to this House of the hon. Member for Barnstaple. As anyone knows who has examined the electoral figures, the number who voted against protective legislation, either for the Labour party or for the Liberal party, was greatly in excess of the number of those who voted for the Government candidates, and supported, what I may quite fairly call, the minority Government. This topic itself is familiar, but the way in which it was discussed in this Debate differed from the way in which it was discussed formerly. The method of dealing with it has entirely altered. In the last Parliament I was present on almost every occasion when these matters were discussed, and this Act was discussed as an expedient by people who laid aside, like the hon. and learned Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir R. Adkins), any preconceptions as to the propriety of Tariff Reform or Free Trade. They said, "Here is an expedient, and we must adopt it in the circumstances of the time." That is not the defence to-day. The defence of the Measure to-day is purely Protectionist, and that must necessarily make a great deal of difference to hon. Members in deciding how they are going to cast their votes. We have now a Government which is homogeneous and Protectionist. There is not a single hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench tonight who is not a Protectionist. In the words of the Home Secretary, in that speech which I read with so much interest, many years ago:
Let them us Unionists stick to their principles of truth, Tariff Reform and the Ten Commandments.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will stick to those principles. What has the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us? First he revived the assertion re-echoed by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford) that the paternity or grand paternity of this Measure belongs to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). [HON. MEMBERS: "Runciman!"] It does not matter. I was
taking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, but I will take Mr. Runciman if you like. I wish to get on terms of perfect understanding with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Reference has been made to the Paris Resolutions. What were the Paris Resolutions? They form a declaration of economic solidarity among the Allies, in the face of an economic threat by the enemy. They were nothing else. I do not know whether the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer ha3 in his mind the terms of the Resolutions? Let me refresh his memory for one moment. The preamble which governs the Resolutions says they are intended to
facilitate the organisation on a permanent basis of the economic alliance of the representatives of the Allied Governments.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Permanent."] On a permanent basis. I am glad hon. Gentlemen have noticed those very important words. Can it be said that the machinery in this Act is intended for that purpose I Will the hon. Member for North Edinburgh say so?

Mr. FORD: Yes.

Captain BENN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an Order under discussion for putting a tax on American fibre? Is he aware that Czecho-Slovakian glass has been recommended for an Order? Is he aware that France, the greatest and dearest of our Allies, is the only country in Europe which is liable unrestrictedly to the operation of this Act, and that the French merchants have described it as a stab in the back? Does he say that a Measure which attacks all our Allies in turn, particularly the French, potentially, is a Measure for the re-establishment on a permanent basis of the economic alliance of the representatives of the Allied Governments? I can only explain it in the case of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer by supposing that his recent experiences, prior to and during the Election, have given him peculiar ideas of his own as to what solidarity among Allies really means. We have heard a great deal in a general way from the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. W. Alexander) about Part I of the Act. He has told us, and we have heard it repeatedly, about the boys in the trenches, the optical glass, the lenses, chemicals, and so forth, which it was necessary for them to have, but what he has utterly failed to prove is that by this
Act you are really providing us with these badly needed things. We do not deny that it is desirable in some way or another that we should have munitions of war when they are necessary; what we do deny is that this Act gives us them. We are well aware that it taxes hypo, for photographs, but that is not a military need, though photographs are of great historical value. Does anyone really say that we had no hypo, before the tax was put en it? We know that Epsom salts are taxed. We know also that when these ridiculous things were put in the Schedule the Government put the "Guillotine" on, so that we could not discuss them item by item, but what we do not know-is that there is any industry built up in this country which will save us in the next war, whenever that unhappy event may occur.
There was a Committee composed by the Government of experts to examine the progress of these industries, and because we wanted to strengthen it the Government satisfied their friends by withdrawing the Committee altogether, so that such inspection as was provided by the Government itself was withdrawn by the Government when the Bill was in course of progress through this House. Here is an interesting thing. Take scientific glass. Does the President of the Hoard of Trade say that Part I is satisfactory as a means of setting up that industry in this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: indicated assent.

Captain BENN: Then why does this industry come forward and explain that it is in a serious condition and must have an Older under Part II of the Act? Surely, if Part I is efficient, the industry should not come forward, as it has done, and apply for another duty under Part II. The fact of the matter is that this is not a new idea, that you can isolate yourself and that you can build up a little wall and live in security by the possession of some small secret. It is as old as the hills, and the less civilised people are, the more tenaciously they hold it. I am not, of course, referring to individuals, but it is a complete delusion that you can put yourself at the head of countries by cutting yourself off from the general circulation of ideas in the world. Everybody knows that scientists do complain of this Act. Everybody knows that you
cannot by tariffs set a limit. In fact, you cannot by tariffs encourage scientific research. Many instances could be given, if time permitted, but I may point to one. One of the defects of our attempt to suppress research in Germany, under the Air Clause of the Treaty, has given a great stimulus to the manufacture and design of gliders, and has put them in a very prominent position aeronautically in the world—an instance of the value of legislation of this kind.
The fact of the matter is that the real key industries are brains and money, and anything which cuts us off from intercourse with the best brains of the world or the best material for research, is not a Safeguarding Act at all, but an Act hampering and reducing our powers. As to Part II of the Act, it has been amply proved by the speakers in this Debate that it hampers trade. It is only necessary to refer to the fact that now all goods under these Orders, from whatever country they come, must be accompanied by a certificate of origin in order to prove that they are not liable to this duty. That in itself is a thing which really hampers trade, and it is very significant that the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) should, after experience— and nobody knows more about the Act than he—come forward and say that it has grown up in a way that was not intended, and that its working deserves immediate consideration in the interests of the public. There are many ways in which trade is hampered. An importer told me the other day that, he imported a large consignment of goods which he found to be faulty. He paid the duty on the goods, and wished to have them replaced from the foreign source, and if he had them replaced he would have to pay a second duty on the second consignment, because it was impracticable to get the duty back on the faulty delivery. Who does the President of the Board of Trade think is going to pay all these duties? The consumer pays. The importer puts these additional charges on to the consumer, and if you raise prices—and the intention of the Act is to raise prices—you reduce purchasing power, and, of course, create unemployment. In passing, there is another very interesting side-light on one phrase of the Act, namely, a phrase much criticised in the Debate—"the price at which similar goods can be profitably
manufactured." That was the test of what was done. Now we find that an Order was made on gas mantles, although the Committee themselves stated that the gas mantle industry is over-capitalised. Of course, if you over-capitalise an industry sufficiently, you can always be able to say that the price at which a dividend can be returned is higher than the price at which the foreigner can supply the goods.
One hon. Gentleman who spoke referred to the possibility of this sort of legislation turning our minds from the consideration of things in the interest of citizens as citizens, and to the promotion in this House of individual interests, of partial or vested interests, or trade or local interests, in place of advocating the interest of the country as a whole. That has already been done. It is a danger of all protective legislation. I wonder if the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is a keen Tariff Reformer, will agree with me about this, that if you have legislation of this kind you are tempted rather to promote partial interests instead of the interests as a whole. Does he consider that is a danger of protective legislation? The right hon. Gentleman says "No." I was very much interested in reading accounts of the election in the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency. This is from the "Times":
The Liberal candidate is of course, a Free Trader, and would, if elected, seek to repeal the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Mr. Amery, on the other hand, believes in the usefulness of the Act. [Hear, hear.] He points to a considerable number of local industries, such as aluminium, glass, magnetos, &c, which are now made there.
I could quote the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) who, according to the "Daily News," says:
I am the gas mantle workers' friend.
An admirable object to pursue. But this was not originally said to be the object of the imposition of the tariff. This was a special expedient to be used to get us into a position of safety in the course of the next generation. That is the attitude that was taken; and yet we have an hon. and gallant Member declaring that he is "the gas mantle workers' friend." It was to get assistance in fighting the Germans or whoever it might be in the days to come.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: You are the German workers' friend.

Captain BENN: I should not be ashamed to say that, for I hope to see the peoples of the countries friends, and brotherhood established. [Interruption.] What the hon. Gentleman does not understand by his foolish observation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—is that the people who fought in the War are the people who are determined to establish peace! May I just draw attention for a moment to one other very remarkable aspect of this legislation. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) suggests that I am determined to be the German manufacturers' friend. That is an odious charge to make because I do not believe in keeping German goods out of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why!"] I say I do that primarily in the interests of British workers and manufacturers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, let me try to make out my case. Where do these goods go to if they do not come here? They go to the neutral markets, and keep out our manufacturers who are trying to exploit these markets.

Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, they are cutting us out!

Mr. SPEAKER: Really, there is not time for these various interruptions.

Captain BENN: Let me give the House some figures from an interesting document recently published dealing with the economic conditions prevailing in several countries and giving official German statistics. German exports to Sweden, Norway and Denmark in 1913 were 6 per cent.; in 1920 they had risen to 19 per cent. To Switzerland they were 5 per cent.; they have risen to 8. To Spain they had risen from I to 2. To this country, I am coming to this point at once! They had been diminished by the tariff walls and from 14 had sunk to 6; Belgium, from o to 3. Where has the balance gone to? The balance has gone to Holland, Norway. Denmark, Switzerland, South America and other countries. That is to say, that all this legislation has done has been to help to force German goods out and cut us out in neutral markets. That has been the effect of these ridiculous and ineffective tariff barriers.
Let me, in conclusion, deal with two general considerations. First, what was the argument on which the whole of Part II of this Act was based? That argument was based on this: "We are in the presence of an imminent catastrophe. There is a storm, a flood coming, and we must prepare ourselves against it." I could quote speeches to that effect from the late Leader of the House, from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then in charge of the Bill, and what was said was to this effect: "We must look in the near future to more fierce and devastating competition from Germany than we have yet had." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea took that line. He slid that is the view on which the case for this Act rests. It is now 18 months since the Act was passed. Has that flood arrived, or does it show any signs of arriving? Let us examine this devastating competition argument. In 1913 for the first nine months we had £58,000,000 worth of imports from Germany.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: That is pre-War.

Captain BENN: Yes. I am comparing the figures with pre-War years. In 1920 it was £20,000,000, in 1921 £15,000,000, and for the first nine months of 1922 it was £18,000,000. So that the devastating Hood of competition against which this Act is supposed to form an effective dam is shown by these figures. Consequently, hon. Members who were willing to accept an expedient of this kind to meet a danger that appeared to threaten, now that it has disappeared, are quite justified in saying that this expedient is no longer necessary. What is the real policy which we should pursue if we wish to reconstruct the economic fabric of Europe? It is to remember the undertakings that we gave. I do not know whether hon. Members will recollect that in President Wilson's Fourteen Points the destruction of economic barriers was the third and not the least wise of them. The strange thing is that even when hon. Gentlemen opposite who are the most keen Protectionists are abroad in Syria they admit the very arguments which we have put forward. When abroad the right hon. Gentleman opposite lays down that the produce or manufactures of European countries should have the same
advantages as other countries, and that is the doctrine of equality of treatment. Where is that applied in the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir R. HORNE: Which country has not a tariff against us?

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that to differentiate between one country and another is to apply equality of treatment? When the President of the Board of Trade is at Genoa he tells them to treat all countries on the same footing. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite impossible to conduct the Debate if hon. Members will not listen to opinions with which they do not agree.

Captain BENN: I have nothing to add to the questions which I have put to the President of the Board of Trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman say if, under Part II of the Act, we apply equality of treatment to the manufacturers of all countries whatsoever? Is it not open to me, in view of the facts, to say that the right hon. Gentleman recommends other countries to do what he will not recommend us to do here? I am entitled to say that his Amendment should recommend itself to Members of the House, because it suggests the repeal of an Act costly to operate, hampering to trade, destructive of research, raising prices and retarding European recovery.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is really necessary for anyone on this bench to wind up the Debate on behalf of the Government after the very admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Home). To my mind, my right hon. Friend answered all the arguments put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But there are one or two observations I should like to make on the Debate which has taken place this evening. The first thing I would say is that we are dealing here with two very different matters. The Safeguarding of Industries Act and other legislation of the kind dealt in Part I of the Act and under the Dyestuffs Act with the question of National Defence. Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act deals with a matter important indeed to the industries, but not having the same relative importance to the country,
namely, the unfair foreign competition encouraged and induced by dumping or collapsed exchanges. I hope I shall be pardoned if I refer once more to the Paris Resolutions. We have been told that these Resolutions have no bearing whatsoever on this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman explained that there was nothing in the Resolutions which bound any country to tamper with its own fiscal arrangements. That is quite true. The Resolution to which he specifically referred said that every country was at liberty to make what arrangements it liked so long as it achieved the result which all the Allies had agreed was indispensable. I think my right hon. Friend must have forgotten that he himself said, speaking on the 2nd August, 1916:
The Allies, as we conceive it, are under a bounden duty to take every practical measure to secure for their own use supplies which are produced in their own territories, and to prevent any German control such as existed in some cases before the War."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd Aug., 1916; col. 335, Vol. 85.]
He went on to say a good many other interesting things, but I will not annoy him by quoting them. I have quoted sufficient for my purpose. It is the bounden duty of the Allies to take those steps, and therefore I suppose my right hon. Friend only criticises this legislation because he says that this is not the right way of doing the thing which we all agree ought to be done. That was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who moved this Amendment He said, speaking of the Dyestuffs Protection Act, that that was the very worst way in which you could possibly approach this problem. When he came to deal will the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which deals with the matter in quite a different way, again he said that that was the very worst way that could possibly be picked out for dealing with this question. He came to the question of collapsed exchanges, where again there was a different way, and he described it as being a very odd method of procedure. What is his way? I think we are entitled, if it is the bounden duty of this House to see that these objects are achieved, and if all these ways are the worst ways we can possibly adopt, to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite what is the way in
which they would suggest we should carry out the duty which they recognise. I have tried to find whether the right hon. Gentleman had any policy. He quoted some words of his own upon this subject, in which he laid clown the conditions under which this bounden duty should be carried out. What were those conditions? The first was that you were not to divert labour or capital from essential industries. The second was that you were not to foist upon the British consumer inferior articles at excessive prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, those are the things that we are not to do; but what we want to know is what are the things that we are to do, and the only suggestion, apparently, that the right hon. Gentleman had to make was that you should take, for the benefit of the State, the profits that might be made by those who were carrying on this industry. They have to make profits first before you can take them away. The right hon. Gentleman has offered that barren suggestion, which, no doubt will always gain cheers from some Members of the House, in order to carry out the objects which, after all, from the time of the War, we have recognised as absolutely essential, not merely to the prosperity, but to the existence of this country. The Balfour of Burleigh Committee, which was appointed by my right hon. Friend, was so impressed with the vital importance of this matter that it said that these industries should be maintained in this country at all hazards at any expense. They did not stop to consider whether it would raise prices, whether it would hamper trade, or whether it would increase unemployment. They said that, at all hazards and at any expense, it was absolutely necessary for the existence of the country that these industries should be preserved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley dropped one suggestion, and that was that you should establish these industries by assisting research. The right hon. Gentleman has one great advantage over me that, so far as I know, he has never himself been engaged in trade, and therefore he is able to bring to the discussion on this question a detachment from the practical realities which is not open to me.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not want to interrupt for more than a second. Will
the right hon. Gentleman tell me, is it his impression that Germany established her chemical industry by a tariff, or was it by promoting and assisting research?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may answer in a word, I would say by both. The comment that I was about to make was, that if you are to confine your encouragement to research, to a professor here and there in a university, that is going to be totally inadequate for the purpose. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not in the least belittling the work of professors of universities, and I recognise that the investigation of pure science is the foundation upon which all applied science rests; but everybody who has been engaged in business knows that you have to take on a dozen men to get one winner. Unless you can do as the Germane did, that is, build tip great chemical industries to give employment to large numbers of chemists, we are never going to get that progress in chemistry which is necessary if we are to maintain and secure our position.
It is useless for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell us that they are in sympathy with the idea of establishing these chemical industries if they are going to refuse to take any steps whatsoever to carry their sympathy into practical effect. The Amendment contains three dogmatic assertions, not of opinion but of alleged facts. It states that these Measures —that is, the Safeguarding of Industries Act—are raising prices, hampering trade and limiting employment. We have not had, throughout this Debate from beginning to end one title of evidence —[HON. MEMBERS: "We have!"]— either that prices have been raised or that employment has been limited. [Interruption.]

Mr. DARBISHIRE: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All that hon. Members have done is to repeat, over and over again, that these Measures must raise prices, but they have not shown that prices have actually been raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes," and Interruption.]

Mr. H. SPENCER: On a point of Order. In my speech I showed that that had happened.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. Hon. Members have made their speeches, and they should listen to the reply.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry if while I was out for a few minutes I did not hear the hon. Gentleman. I have not heard one single fact to show that prices have been raised by the effect of this legislation. I think I remember what the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Spencer) said. He was talking about the destruction of a dyeing industry in Java.

Mr. SPENCER: No, in Bradford.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have had no evidence of any decline in exports due to this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley gave the key note, almost in the opening sentence of his speech, when he declared that what he was out for was to preserve the right of British merchants to buy freely in foreign markets. That is his point. I ask the House to consider which is the best to preserve for this country, a British merchant, who employs a few clerks and gives employment to people in Germany, or a British manufacturer, who, at any rate, employs workpeople and, if he can, increases his works—[HON. MEMBERS: "And his profits."]—yes, and his profits, and thereby employs more and more of our people? I think we are entitled to quote, upon our side, the evidence of one or two of those who are engaged in the trades affected, as to what effect it has had upon employment in these trades. An old-established firm in tike chemical trade writes:
We have found it possible to set to work on research and experimental work on a number of new chemical products which we believe can now be profitably developed in this country under the protection of the Act. Some of these new products may turn out to be saleable on a very large scale, with an automatic increase of employment for our workpeople.
Another firm writes:
We have undertaken the manufacture of a number of additional chemical substances since the Act was passed. We have three additional buildings at present in course of erection, two of them approaching completion. We are employing additional chemists, junior chemists, skilled workmen, process workers and labourers.
It is very easy for hon. Members opposite to dig out here and there a ease where the working of a novel and complex Act has resulted in some difficulties of administration, but I think we are entitled to ask that a little time should be given for experience to be gained before we attempt to pull up by the roots an Act which has already increased employment in many directions and which is beginning, slowly it may be, but surely, to build up the great industry which we believe and

which you, too, believe to be essential to the security of the country. I should have liked to enter upon a discussion of Part II, but time does not permit. Let us go on a little longer upon the path on which we have entered, and let us reject decisively the Amendment before the House.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 207: Noes, 269.

Division No. 12.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Groves, T.
Morel, E. D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Morris, Harold


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Guest. Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mosley. Oswald


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Muir, John W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murnin, H.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hancock, John George
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Attlee, C. R.
Harbison, Thomas James S.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harbord, Arthur
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Nichol, Robert


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Harney, E. A.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
O'Grady, Captain James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Oliver, George Harold


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hastings, Patrick
Paling, W.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Parker. H. (Hanley)


Bonwick, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Parry, Lieut. Colonel Thomas Henry


Bowdler, W. A.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Briant, Frank
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Phillipps, Vivian


Broad, F. A.
Henn. Sir Sydney H.
Phillpson, H. H.


Brotherton, J.
Herriotts, J.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hill, A.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Buchanan, G.
Hillary, A E.
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Buckle, J.
Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burgess, S.
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Burnie, Major J.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Ritson, J.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Hodge, Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hopkinion, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Robinson. W. C. (York, Eliand)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)'
Rose, Frank H.


Chapple, W. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Royce. William Stapleton


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Saklatvala, S.


Collie, Sir John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
t Salter, Dr. A.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Scrymgeour, E.


Collison, Levi
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Darbishire, C. W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kenyon, Barnet
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Simpson, J. Hope


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lansbury, George
Sinclair, Sir A.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Sitch, Charles H,


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Edge, Captain Sir William
Linfield, F. C.
Snowden, Philip


Edmonds, G.
Lowth, T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn. William
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Stephen, Campbell


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Stephenson. Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Entwistie, Major C. F.
Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
M'Entee, V. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
McLaren, Andrew
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Falrbairn, R. R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Falconer, J.
March, S.
Thornton, M.


Foot, Isaac
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Tillett, Benjamin


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Marshall. Sir Arthur H.
Tout, W. J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Greenall, T.
Mathew, C. J.
Turner, Ben


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Millar, J. D.
Warne, G. H.




Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Whiteley, W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.
wignall, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Weir, L. M.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)



Westwood, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYE.—


Wheatley, J.
Wilton, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. George Thorne.


White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Wilton, R. J. (Jarrow)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Ednam, viscount
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elveden, Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Apsley, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lorden, John William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lorimer, H. D.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Lougher, L.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lumley, L. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Forestier-Walker, L.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Banks, Mitchell
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Furness, G. J.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W
Galbraith, J, F. W.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Garland, C. S.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Berry. Sir George
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Birch all, Major J. Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gould, James C.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Brass. Captain W.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Murchison, C. K.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Nail, Major Joseph


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nesbitt, J. C.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bruford, R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bruton, Sir James
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Halstead, Major D.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Buckley, Lieut, Colonel A.
Hamilton, sir George C. (Altrincham)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Harrison, F. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Harvey, Major S. E.
Paget, T. G.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hawke, John Anthony
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Penny, Frederick George


Button, H. S.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Perring, William George


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Peto, Basil E.


Cassels, J. D,
Hlley, Sir Ernest
Pielou, D. P.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Privett, F. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Raine, W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Clarry, Reginald George
Houfton, John Plowright
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, ft.)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Clayton, G. C.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A.
Remer, J. R.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hughes, Collingwood
Remnant, Sir James


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Hume, G. H.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff. South)
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles. N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Curzon. Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Dalzlel Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hampstead)
Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Russell-Wells, Sir Sidney


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.




Sandon, Lord
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Whitla, Sir William


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Windsor, Viscount


Shepperson. E. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Singleton, J. E.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Winterton, Earl


Skelton, A. N.
Titchfield, Marquess ot
Wise, Frederick


Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Viscount


Somerville, A. A, (Windsor)
Tubbs, S. w.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furn'ss)
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Sparkes, H. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Stanley, Lord
Wallace, Captain E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Steel, Major S. Strang
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wells, S. R.



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sutcliffe, T.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

Main Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the-Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

TRADE FACILITIES AND LOANS GUARANTEE [MONEY.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(a) to amend section one of The Trade Facilities Act, 1921,—

(i) by increasing to fifty million pounds the limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans the principal or interest of which may be guaranteed thereunder; and
(ii) by extending by one year the period within which guarantees may be given thereunder; and (iii) by providing for the charging of fees in connection with matters arising thereunder;
(b) to authorise the Treasury—

(i) to guarantee to the extent set out in Protocol No. II, signed at Geneva on the 4th day of October, 1922, and the Annexes thereto, a loan to be raised by the Austrian government of such an amount as, after payment of the expenses of issue, will produce the equivalent of a sum not exceeding six hundred and fifty million gold crowns; and
(ii) to guarantee the payment of the principal of and the interest on any securities hereafter issued by the Austrian government which are to be repayable out of the proceeds of the loan afore said; and
(iii) to make an issue of securities for the purpose of rendering more readily effective any guarantee which may be given by the Treasary as aforesaid and to provide for the redemption of any such securities;
1384
(c) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, any loan raised by the government of the Soudan for, or in connection with, works, for the purpose of irrigating Gezireh Plain not exceeding in the aggregate an amount sufficient to raise three million five hundred thousand pounds;
(d) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 and 1921, by providing that for the purposes of the provisions of these Acts relating to the period within which the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the giving of guarantees in connection with export transactions may he exercised, the date on which the Board enter into an agreement to give guarantees shall be treated as the date on which the guarantees are given;
(e) to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantees as aforesaid or required for meeting the principal of, or the interest on, any such bonds as aforesaid, and to provide for the laying before Parliament of statements and accounts with respect to the matters aforesaid."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I raise a question at this stage in order to safeguard myself I This Resolution consists of several parts which are entirely different the one from the other. The first deals with the Trade Facilities Act. We then pass to the loan to Austria, implementing a Resolution arrived at by the League of Nations, which is entirely different from Trade Facilities. We then pass to the Treasury guarantee of the interest on a loan for public works in the Sudan; and we reach the fourth part, which has to do with overseas trade credit and insurance, which is entirely different from Trade Facilities or the other parts of the Resolution. It is entirely against the spirit of the financial control of the Commons over expenditure to put these four or five Resolutions as one Motion. I have refreshed my memory by looking up pre-
cedents of the way these things were dealt with, and though I find that on the surface Erskine May is against me, yet this procedure of Parliament is without precedent. I have searched the annals of this House, and I cap find no case in which so utterly dissimilar Resolutions are bunched together in one motion. I beg, Mr. Chairman, that you will not consent to put these five motions together. It might well be that hon. Members would desire to vote against loans to the Sudan Government, but might be in favour of voting for loans to the Austrian Government, or rice versa. It is unfair that we should not have the opportunity of separately recording our votes on these several proposals and I claim your protection, Sir, accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for having given me notice of his intention to raise this question. His search for precedents has not been completely exhaustive. Had he searched through the annals of 1912, he would have found that precisely this point was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) on the Financial Resolution necessary for the introduction of the Government of Ireland Bill, in which maters far more incongruous than those set forth in the present Resolution were allowed to be put as one Resolution. There are other precedents, as for example, Mr. Emmott's ruling on the License Duties in the Budget of 1909, and I have given a similar ruling since, on the introduction of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. There is nothing in the procedure in Committee of the whole House which prevents these proposals being combined in one Resolution.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that this is somewhat in the nature of an omnibus resolution, but it is an omnibus that contains very good passengers. Some of them are there to aid employment in this country and some of them are there under very solemn pledges. I propose to say a few words on each of the points involved. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member will desire to debate some of them at greater length and I shall have pleasure in replying. Under
heading (a) of the Resolution, all three paragraphs deal with the Trade Facilities Act and the effect of the first two of those paragraphs is to continue the existence of the Act for a further period of twelve months. The third paragraph puts in what is omitted in the Act of last year and that is a provision for charging such fees as may be necessary to make the scheme entirely self-supporting, an object with which, I think, the majority of the House will be in full sympathy. The costs of administration are very small. They are confined to a Secretary and the legal charges necessary for employing solicitors to draw up the agreements necessary between interested parties and the Government. A very trifling commission on the amount guaranteed will be more than sufficient to provide the necessary funds, but my object in all this kind of legislation will be to see that so far as possible no charge for services rendered can be charged upon the taxpayer.
All three paragraphs under heading (b) refer to what is known generally as the Austrian loan. I feel confident that this scheme, more or less familiar to Members of the House, will be received with interest and with sympathy, for it is the result of the first international effort that has been made to help to bring financial salvation to one of the ruined countries of Europe. The scheme was worked out by the League of Nations, and it is the greatest creative work that they have as yet carried through. I think the success that attended their exertions augurs well for the future of the League, and the success that they did attain is largely owing, as I am proud to say, to the work done by our representative at Geneva, Lord Balfour, who spent some time this autumn in bringing his unrivalled powers to bear in an international conference to bring to fruition what seemed at the outset a very difficult, if not an impossible, task. Lord Balfour was authorised by the Government of which he was then a member to attach his signature to the agreement, and by so attaching it to pledge the British Government to fulfil its part of the bargain into which several nations had entered. Paragraph (i) of (b) relates directly to the guarantee and refers to a Protocol. The Protocols have all been published, and are probably in the possession of Members of the House.
Command Paper of this year No. 1765, and our share, which we have to guarantee, amounts to something over £6,000,000, out of a total of something like £27,000,000, which is involved in the whole loan. Paragraph (ii) is to cover this point, that in case the Austrian Government should find it necessary, before they were in a position to issue the full loan, to issue a short or temporary loan, in the form of Treasury bills or some other short-dated security, the guarantees would apply equally to those instruments, but the fact of guaranteeing them does not involve any extra charge, because on the issue of the whole loan such smaller sums would be repayable out of the issue of the whole loan. Paragraph (iii) covers rather a technical point. It may well be, in raising a loan of this magnitude and of this nature, that it may aid in floating the loan, and make it less difficult to get the money than it otherwise would be, if the contracting parties themselves put up securities representing their share, and thus giving, massed together under one central authority, securities which were easily recognisable and easily getatable by contributors to the loan. The security of the loan, as Members are aware, will be a first charge on the Customs and the tobacco revenues of Austria.
Those revenues are estimated by the financial advisers of the League of Nations, who naturally take a very conservative view of the financial position, as amounting to a sum of not less than 80,000,000 gold crowns per annum, or something over £6,000,000, which is more than an ample sum to secure the interest which will be payable on the whole loan.
The carrying out of this loan is considered by all competent advisers to be absolutely necessary for the financial salvation of Austria, and the financial salvation of Austria is not only a matter of the first importance to Austria herself, but to the whole of the south-east of Europe and to the trade of this country, because Vienna has always been the centre of finance and business, not only for Austria, but for adjoining countries, and for the Balkan countries in the south-east, and it would make what today is a difficulty, and has been deemed an almost hopeless, task, far less hopeless, if not hopeful if we may, before too long, find conditions so improved in that part of Europe that
it may be possible once more to resume trade with those countries.
Paragraph (c), again, touches our trade at home very closely. It is to guarantee a loan to be raised by the Government of the Sudan for completing the great dam, which is to aid in the irrigation of a large portion of the Sudan. The scheme itself is of greater magnitude than was originally contemplated, and like all these large schemes, especially those where contract prices were got out within a year of the Armistice, prices have enormously increased, and the estimates are considerably beyond any that were considered reasonable when the irrigation scheme was first propounded; but it has been investigated more than once recently by an expert sent out by the Treasury to advise, and his report is that, even after the expenditure of this increased sum, when the scheme is finished, the benefit to that country will be so great, that there should be no doubt of the Sudan itself being able to pay out of its revenues the interest required on the loan. The whole object, or the main object, of the irrigation is to enable cotton-growing to be proceeded with in the Sudan. The Sudan, I am told, is one of the best fields in the world for the growing of long staple cotton, and I am also told, by those who know the cotton trade, that there is a real fear, and more than a fear, that the supply of raw cotton in the world to-day is not sufficient for the world's trade, and, unless immediate steps are taken to increase the growing capacity of the world for cotton, great disaster will overcome, if not the cotton trade of the world, at any rate the cotton trade of this country, which is dependent entirely on imported cotton. I am told that the area that it is forthwith proposed to irrigate is such that it will be possible, on the completion of the scheme, to grow 70,000 bales for shipment each year to Lancashire. But as it may be possible when the dam is finished to bring under irrigation a vastly increased area to that already proposed, there seems no reason why the Sudan in the future, and perhaps the not far distant future, will bid fair to become one of the great cotton growing districts of the world. A very small technical point is involved in paragraph (d) in connection with the Overseas Trades Acts. It is to make clear a phrase that occurs as to the actual date
to which the guarantee of the export credit is made. That will be explained, if need be, further by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. No money is involved in it. Further, paragraph (e) is consequential on a previous paragraph. When the suitable time comes I propose to direct my Amendment towards correcting a slip in a drafting phrase to make the words "such bonds" read "securities."

Captain Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order, Is it in order for an hon. Member on the Labour Benches to read a newspaper?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to read a newspaper.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly there has been an increase in the estimate for the Sudan—the estimate made within one year of the Armistice. It is now for a larger amount. In view of the general reduction will the right hon. Gentleman explain the increase?

Mr. BALDWIN: The estimates were made in 1919. It was anticipated that there would be a fall in prices; as a matter of fact the hon. Gentleman will remember that the rise continued on all kinds of goods, the cost of labour, &c.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the amount of money required to fulfil the obligations of what he calls an omnibus resolution. The one thing that, more than any other, interested the electorate during the recent election was Government spending—Governmental taxation There is one point in particular on which I should like some information, leaving it to others to deal with other points that may afford a target for them. I refer to the Austrian loan. I have some difficulty in believing that the Treasury guarantee of some six millions will effect the very desirable result suggested. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Lord Balfour, at Geneva, exercised his unrivalled power of diplomacy, finesse and sagacity; but it does not require much power on the part of any British statesman to pledge British credit for loans on the Continent. We have had too many of these loans in the past. For my own part, I agree with the Prime Minister when he said that we could not be policemen for the world. I say, too, that we cannot be moneylenders for the world. I would ask
my right hon. Friend whether he, as a business man, would put his own money into this Austrian loan? If not, why does he put the money of the British taxpayer into it? [An HON. MEMBER: "Reparation!"] I will come to that later. I would say that if it is a test that he knows no business men or firm here who would put their money into these loans to foreign Powers, why should the British taxpayer be asked to put his money into it?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The League of Nations suggested it.

Mr. LAMBERT: I have a strong objection to the money of the British taxpayer being allowed to go into this bottomless sink of European indebtedness. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite says the League of Nations asked us to enter into this loan, but I would remind hon. Members that the League put certain questions to the Austrian Government. The first was, what measures are required and are practical to secure Budget equilibrium in Austria? The answer cannot be given with certainty, because the period depends upon the resolution and the authority of the Austrian Government in carrying out the drastic reforms which are necessary. Have we any evidence that the Austrian Government is strong enough to carry out the drastic reforms recommended by the League of Nations? If this condition is recognised, equilibrium will be established in two years and it is upon this basis that the League of Nations recommended the loan. It is the duty of the Government to see that there is a stable Government in Austria capable of carrying out these drastic economies in the national expenditure before we are asked to back a Bill for a large loan to Austria. It has been laid down that State industrial enterprises should be suppressed. A most important instance is furnished, by the railways, which involve a deficit of 124,000,000 golden crowns. What guarantee have we of this drastic action on the part of the Austrian Government? I object to the British taxpayer being asked to back bills for the benefit of the Austrian Government, which has shown no signs of carrying out these reforms.
Then there is the question of the reduction in the number of the officials. We have had experience of that kind of thing in our own country. We have
been told that Vienna which used to be a capital of 6,000,000 inhabitants has now more State employees than when she was a capital of over 50,000,000. What guarantees have we that these State officials will be suppressed? Here we are supposed to have a very strong Government, but officialism has not been suppressed. We are asked to go into this loan with France, Italy and Czechoslovakia. France and Italy both owe us large sums of money. How if the guarantee becomes payable is the money to be collected? The League of Nations rcommend this, but what power has the League to compel the payment of the money if the nations default? It seems to me they have none. What is likely to be the future of Europe? You have Germany in a state of financial collapse. Germany and Russia have made a Treaty, and they are behind Turkey. There is bound to be great disturbance in Europe within the next few months, Yet in spite of that the British Government are proposing to lend £6,000,000 of the British taxpayer's money to the Austrian Government! I object to it. I do not believe in the soundness of the proposal. The whole thing is wrong. We are having far too much of this philanthropic enterprise; of this pouring of our money into countries where there is no stable Government. I strongly object, too, that the Government should have thought it necessary to bring in this their first administrative achievement involving I do not know how many millions sterling—

Mr. BALDWIN: The Austrian loan comes to about 27 millions, of which we guarantee six millions.

Mr. LAMBERT: I was saying I did not know how much was involved in this omnibus Resolution.

Mr. BALDWIN: They are all guarantees amounting in the aggregate to about 34 millions.

Mr. LAMBERT: Well I will not pursue the matter further, I object to this Austrian loan, and if I can get anyone to go into the division lobby with me, I shall divide against the Resolution.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I do not find myself in as close agreement with the financial criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South
Molton (Mr. Lambert) as I usually like to do, always being sure of sound economy on his side. But in this case, as far as his criticisms of the provisions of this Resolution are concerned, they have gone too far. I believe them to be useful and salutary provisions, judging by their apparent common sense. In two cases—in the case of Trade Facilities and in that of the Overseas Credit Scheme—they are but carrying on work well begun and which has proved thoroughly beneficial for the relief of the great evil of unemployment. Then as regards the proposal which he criticises with more severity—the proposal to guarantee a loan to Austria, there again I think it may be claimed that it is dictated by common sense. It is the case that the financial machinery of Eastern Europe depends normally upon the nervous ganglion which if it be financially depressed may lead to a worse paralysis of trade in Eastern Europe. Therefore, it appears to me that in this region also, if we are considering simply and solely the alleviation of our own great evil of unemployment and the return of our trade to normal conditions, we shall be well advised to carry out this scheme of the League of Nations for the relief of Austria. It appears to me that the answer to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asks, and most naturally asks, is provided by the League's machinery. As I understand it, when this loan has been raised and guaranteed, it will, not be made available for the purposes of the Austrian Government unless those measures of reform are carried out pari passu which we all know to be so desirable. In these circumstances, there is nothing but what is consonant with the strictest economy and practical common sense in this Resolution.
I rose, really, for the purpose of asking a particular question of quite minor detail in connection with paragraph (a, iii) of the Resolution. As I understand it, power is to be taken to charge fees for the administration of the Act. That is an admirable purpose, but there is a wider purpose, namely, to provide some reserve fund against possible defalcations upon the guarantees, and that could only be done by charging a commission. The question that I want to ask is whether the powers taken under this Resolution would be sufficient to enable the Treasury to provide a reserve
fund against possible defalcations upon the guarantees. That is clearly a wider purpose than merely meeting the administrative expenses of the Measure. I do not know whether it is intended that the Bill which is to be introduced shall cover that wider safeguarding of the Exchequer or not. If it is not intended that it shall be covered by the Bill, I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to the question whether it is not a desirable purpose to raise a reserve fund by means of a commission or something of the kind, in order to provide against any actual loss upon the guarantees.
With regard, finally, to another minor point of detail, as regards paragraph (c), it will be within the memory of the right hon. Gentleman that, when the Tokar Railway Act was passed last session, an undertaking was given that no further money should be raised for the purpose of the Sudan barrage scheme without very careful financial inquiry. Since that time, as I understand from the right hon. Gentleman, such an inquiry has been carried out, and what I wanted to ask was whether it would be possible to lay Papers on the subject of the inquiry, or any other Papers which would be informative, before the Bill is introduced, the day after to-morrow.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: I should like to dissociate myself from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) in the criticisms which he offered with regard to the loan to Austria, and to associate myself rather with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I think that the engagement entered into, in a sense through the mediation of the League of Nations, is one which has got to be fulfilled. I am not going to suggest that we ought to go back upon it, but what I do want to suggest is that the form of control which the Agreement suggests should be imposed upon the Austrian people and the Austrian Government is of an exceedingly oppressive nature. It appears that the Austrian working classes—shall I say the Austrian people in general?—are confronted with a painful and tragic alternative. Either they are to go without all possibility of reconstruction and re-habiliation, or they are to submit to a control which, leaves them practically without, anything of the nature of internal
sovereignty or independence left. It is a terrible alternative for any nation to have to face, and it appears all the more terrible to us, seeing that we ourselves and our Allies are responsible for reducing the Austrian people to the condition in which they now are. The severe restriction imposed upon them takes, broadly, three different forms, and they are all illustrated by the Agreement, the text of which has been circulated to the Members of this House. In the first paragraph, we have a repetition on the part of the Austrian Government of a condition which was forced upon them in the Treaty of Saint-Germain, when they were precluded from joining any other State. It is a political restriction, under the name of not alienating their independence. This was a restriction imposed on them in the Saint-Germain Treaty, which they are now, as part of this control, compelled unwillingly to repeat once again on their own part. It is a political restriction upon their freedom and upon their sovereignty, which is in absolute contradiction to the professions with which this country went into the War, namely, that it was fighting for the self-determination of the nations, whether they were enemies or friends. I do not believe that anyone who has even pretended to reconcile these declarations of belief in self-determination with the restrictions imposed on the Austrian people has had the slightest measure of success or made himself anything but ridiculous in attempting to reconcile two things which are absolutely irreconcileable.
Then we come to the second point, in which the control is very severe. The powers given to the Commissioner-General, as representing the League of Nations, and the Committee of Control, as representing the Guaranteeing States, are very far-reaching indeed. I will not take up the time of the Committee by going into any details, because they are familiar enough to anyone who has cast his eye over this printed Agreement. Practically everything which in this House we consider as the prerogative of this House, every measure dealing with financial problems in which we regard it as vital to be perfectly free, in Austria is submitted to the control of the Commissioner or the Committee of Control.
The third point, which is the most serious of all, is that there is an absolutely direct interference with the
sovereignty of the people of Austria, in the shape of a control over their Parliament itself, expressed in the most general terms. The Austrian Government is obliged, as a condition of this Loan, to lay before the Austrian Reischrat—the Austrian Parliament—a law of a most extraordinary kind; a law which, if it were introduced into this House, would be treated, if not with indignation, at any rate with ridicule; a law by which the Parliament is asked virtually to commit suicide; a law by which the Parliament is asked, of its own pretended volition, to give up its own essential life, power and prerogative. The Austrian Government has to lay before its Parliament a law "giving, during two years, to any Government which may be in power"—

An HON. MEMBER: A Soviet Government?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, including a Soviet Government—
full authority to take all measures within the limits of this programme which may be necessary"—
I omit non-essential words—
to assure … budgetary equilibrium without there being any necessity to seek for further approval by Parliament.
The Parliament in those terms completely abdicates its functions.
I recognise that this Loan is a necessity for Austria, and I do not share the criticism of the right hon. Member for South Molton who, in addition to other attacks, suggested that £6,000,000 is a very small sum to rehabilitate Austria. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly justified in pointing out that £6,000,000 is merely our share of a fairly substantial Loan, and that the Loan as a whole is undoubtedly enough if not to rehabilitate Austria at any rate to arrest the terrible decline that is going on, and to give her a chance, with hard work and great effort, to recover.
But I deeply regret that it should not have been found possible by the League of Nations Committee, and by our representatives on that Committee, to attach to this Loan conditions that were less of an invasion of democratic rights in Austria itself. I think, in view of the responsibility both of this country and of our Allies towards Austria, the responsibility for the fearful debacle which has occurred there, we might have managed to suggest conditions
that were less derogatory to their sovereignty and to their national feelings. It certainly is a very extraordinary contrast to place this agreement, with the measures which it involves for helping Austria, side by side with the Treaty of St. Germain four years ago, and one might forma striking and even an amusing contrast by setting the proposals of these two documents side by side. Four years ago we were not setting up machinery for handing over money and helping Austria out of her difficulties. We were setting up machinery for getting even larger sums of money out of Austria. I might, if I were permitted, quote various Clauses of that Treaty under which we not only—

The CHAIRMAN: That would be beyond the scope of the Resolution.

Mr. BUXTON: I am very glad that contrast is so great and so striking and so glaring as it is, and that we have before us to-day a document very different from the Treaty of St. Germain and very much more favourable, and I hope it will realise the objects it has in view.

12 M.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I should like to remind the Committee and the last two speakers that already no less than £12,000,000 of the taxpayer's money has been advanced to Austria, and of that amount not one single penny of interest has been paid, nor has any sinking fund of any kind been raised for repaying the capital. Under these circumstances it seems to me that, from a financial point of view at any rate, we are doing an extremely rash thing in guaranteeing any further amount, because, make no mistake about it, there can be no possible doubt that the guarantors will be called upon to make good the sum they have guaranteed. We have in this White Paper a list of the securities which are to be hypothecated as security for the interest and capital of the loan which we guarantee. A great portion of the first three have already been mortgaged for the new bank of issue, and all that is left is the Tobacco Monopoly, which is estimated to produce 40,000,000 crowns a year, which is approximately £2,000,000. I quite agree if there was any chance of their being paid that is another thing, but if the Austrian Government have these valuable resources to their hand why have they paid no interest on the money we have
lent them? Furthermore, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if our liability under this guarantee is definitely limited to the £6,000,000 that he spoke of. It seems to me that we are entering, with France, Italy and Czechoslovakia, into a joint and several guarantee. Let us suppose that the English public put up a large sum. Let us say they put up £14,000,000. Is only half of that amount to be guaranteed by the British Government? If so, which half? Why should one-half be guaranteed in preference to any other? If we are not going to guarantee the whole amount, is it reasonable to suppose that money will be found in this country? If it is not found here, is there any likelihood of it being forthcoming from Czechoslovakia, France, or Italy? As the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has said, France and Italy between them owe to us £700,000,000. If they cannot pay that—I give them every credit for the best intentions in that way—but the fact remains that they have not paid any interest and are not making any attempt to repay the capital—it does not seem that the security of our co-guarantors is particularly valuable. In reply to a question a few days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the loan or various loans we had made hitherto were to be repaid out of the £6,000,000 which were to guarantee. If he means that it seems a too-hopeful view to take. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Charles Buxton) said we are placing upon Austria Conditions which are derogatory to her status as an independent State. I would be the last person to dictate to Austria, but if they want money from this country, I want to borrow from the taxpayers here, it is only fair that representatives of the taxpayers should have some say on the question of how this money is to be dealt with. It seems to me that we are throwing good money after bad, we have already taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers £12,000,000, which with interest amounts to, approximately, £14,000,000. In my opinion there is no chance of our ever seeing that back again. To the money already thrown away we are throwing another £6,000,000. I protest against this being done, and I shall have the greatest pleasure in dividing against the Government on this Resolution.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I rise to speak on this matter with the greatest sympathy for the Republic of Austria. At the same time, I cannot but be glad that an opportunity has been given not merely to this House, but to the peoples of Europe and the world in general, to see the kind of thing which awakens the sympathetic interest and the undaunted enthusiasm of the League of Nations. Belonging as I do to the Communist party, I regard the League of Nations with disgust and abhorence. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. I thought it was the habit in this House to listen to points of view however unpleasant they may be.
The League of Nations has shown itself very slow to interest itself in the starving children, regardless of whether they were in Russia or Vienna. Nothing has been done during all those years for the little children of Austria who were dying off like flies, and nothing worth mentioning has been done in this House to save the starving children of Vienna. But when it comes to a matter of saving the credit of a country, which has been aptly described as the nerve centre of finance, immediately we find the League of Nations and this House all agog at a moment's notice. I spoke of this matter on the Address and I made certain references which I intend now to amplify considerably. There is no country in Europe with which this Government—I do not mean merely this Ministry: I mean the Ring's Government—that goes on from year to year, regardless of whatever Ministry is in office—and your Foreign Office and your Treasury have had closer relations than the government of the Hapsburgs of Austria. That government has been one of the greatest borrowers in Europe. It has been a country where national loans, municipal loans, railway loans, tramway loans, collieries, steel works and every kind of state, industrial and commercial activity have derived their finance either from the Hopes of Amsterdam, from the Rothschilds of Frankfurt and Buckinghamshire or else from the Rothschilds of Paris. Austria, Vienna, has been mortgaged from 1816 to the present time, to the very hilt to the great international houses of Rothschilds. That is the group which has Austria, and which is responsible for this last poor attempt to save Austria from ruin not in the interests of
civilisation or of Europe, but in the interests of a bond-holding clique of unscrupulous rascals. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I did not expect that it would be the duty of His Majesty's Opposition to please His Majesty's Government. [HON. MEMBER: "Go on!"] When we come to the question of this Loan we find that it is to be secured upon the Austrian tobacco monopoly. I have been looking carefully into the matter of this Austrian Loan, and I have here a document which I have had certified by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, giving intimate details as to the directors and as to the aims of the Anglo-Austrian Bank, Ltd. We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter has been brought forward and carried through by the instrumentality of the League of Nations. Now, it is a curious fact that one of those who are to benefit by this Loan is the Anglo-Austrian Bank, which has as one of its directors, Sir Henry Strakosch, the Chairman of the financial section of the League of Nations. We see, the League of Nations on the one hand, and at the same time we find its financial head intimately associated with the exploitation of the people of Vienna. There is the impartiality which we expect from hon. Members. This loan further needs to be examined by reason of the fact that its guarantee is also placed on the tobacco monopoly. This tobacco monopoly is a feature which one finds in nearly all these attempts to secure the resources of a country in the interests of the bondholders. It was characteristic of the Imperial Ottoman Debt; it was characteristic of the finance of the Commissioners responsible for putting Greece into, power after the war between Turkey and Greece in 1896.
There is an attempt being made on the continent of Europe to take away the State monopoly on tobacco and to put it in the hands of two tobacco companies—one British and the other American—if it is possible to distinguish the two. They work together. They desire to exploit Austria, France, and Italy in the same manner as they are exploiting Turkey, Greece and other countries. I find something more. I find that among the list of directors of the Anglo-Austrian Bank there are two directors of the Imperial Ottoman Bank. That points clearly to
their association, taken together with the other associations of these gentlemen, and the associations of their fathers and grandfathers. I have studied this matter of the Austrian banks right back through the whole period of the Hapsburg régime and I have also studied Turkish finances right back to the 18th Century, and I know something of the way in which you have gradually been throwing the noose over the necks of Turkey, Rumania and Greece, and now over the necks of the little children whom you have not been able to get into their coffins, otherwise in the city of Vienna. During the War hon. Members opposite, and certain hon. Members who sit on the Front Bench on this side of the House—Privy Councillors who have since recanted—have been talking about the self-determination of small nationalities [HON. MEMBERS: "What did you do?"] I tried to stop it, and if there is another War, I shall try to stop it by revolution.

The CHAIRMAN: That question is not congruous to the present proposal.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Pardon me, Sir. When one is being "barracked" by Gentlemen of England, one sometimes loses one's way.

Mr. MAXTON: These are not the Gentlemen of England.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Well, the Gentlemen of Scotland. In the War you talked of self-determination of small nationalities. You discovered a triangle of races which no one in this country knew about. You discovered the Czecho-Slovakians and, I think, the Ruthenians, and some other people of that kind.

Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the matter before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: I presume that the hon. Member intends to connect it with the Resolution under discussion.

Mr. NEWBOLD: We have heard a great deal about self-determination of small nationalities. Hon. Gentlemen opposite discovered the Czecho-Slovakians and began to tell the nation in general about them. [HON MEMBERS: "Lloyd George"] Yes, and some people with Lloyd George, discovered the Yugo-Slavs and the Czecho-Slovakians and God knows who besides, and when it came to the Treaty the old dual monarchy was divided up
and the new State emerged known as Czecho-Slovakia. It was a State whose government was a Republic—a Republic economically and politically too weak to stand by itself. It needed monetary assistance and so, from every part of the world, the bagmen came to Prague. Some came from Paris, others from Amsterdam; others, in turn, came from London, and some came from New York. Everybody was ready to help the poor little bourgeois Republic at Prague. A new Government was set up in the interests of these people who had previously been clients of the banks of Vienna. It was set up as, and is to-day, the creature of the international bond-holders. It may call itself an independent State, but to all intents and purposes Czecho-Slovakia is as much in the bag, as Vienna will be, when you have provided it with funds. The same is the case with Yugo-Slavia, Rumania, Hungary and Poland. It is doubtful which is the greater curse—to have your blessing or to have you as bond-holders. In either case, it means slavery, undoubtedly. You have got to have your pound of flesh.

The CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Member proposed to connect this argument with the present financial situation in Vienna. He is not at liberty to run round the various nations which composed the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Mr. NEWBOLD: In naming various States which formerly composed the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I had in mind the fact that their trade had its centre of finance and credit facilities in Vienna and it is because of the fact that you have detached these States from Vienna, that you are face to face with this problem to-night. I would suggest rather to His Majesty's Government that they should tear up that infamous instrument known as the Peace Treaty, and go back to the former position. I wish to dissent from my hon. friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. C. Buxton). I do not myself see anything inconsistent in the policy of the Government in 1918 and the policy of the Government to-day. In 1918 it was the desire of the capitalists of Britain and France to emancipate Vienna from dependence upon the four big bankers of Germany. To-day it is equally their desire to attach Vienna to the big bankers of Paris and London. It is necessary to do one thing for one process
and another thing for the continuance of that process in another direction. The Treaty of Peace was an instrument designed for the purpose of furthering the bondholders' interests here, just as this to-day is to reverse the process now that it is time for them to go in a slightly different direction. The whole of this policy is calculated in the interests of the bondholders, in the interests of the big "bosses" who have not been able otherwise to save themselves.
I wish now to leave the question of Austria and to pass on to that of the Sudan. There is no territory which makes a more interesting study than that of the Sudan. It is because of the Sudan, because of its potentialities for producing cotton and corn, in the interests, not of Britishers, but of that gang of Greek merchants behind Sir Basil Zaharoff, naturalised Greeks, not Britishers—not the genuine article, at any rate, only with the hall-mark, like the Rothschilds—it is in the interests of these people, and because of these people, that you have forfeited your pledges, broken your promises, gone back on your word, and refused to leave Egypt, as you promised that you would do. You are broken pledgemakers. You have shown that you do not believe in keeping faith when it does not pay—

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: What about paying America our debt?

Mr. NEWBOLD: That, I believe, will arise in another discussion. The Sudan is the territory, as hon. Members know, through which passes the Nile—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—It is just possible, in view of the fact that at the Peace Conference a certain Prime Minister did not know the location of Teschen, that some Cabinet Ministers to-day do not know the location of Khartum. It is just possible that some hon. Members do not know that the Nile supplies the necessary water, not for making beer, but for the purpose of growing cotton and corn. However, unless there are built several great barrages like the one at Assuan or the big dam that you are building today, it will not be possible to grow that greater supply of cotton which is necessary for the purpose of rendering you able to produce bogus silk, and when you come to the question of bogus silk, otherwise known as artificial silk, you come
straight up to the whole question of Near Eastern Policy. Having arrived that far, I shall turn aside until a future Debate.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that Egypt, or, rather, the Sudan, is a region in which it is possible to grow long staple cotton, but you have that to-day also in Kenya Colony, Uganda, Iraq, and Syria, and other regions which you have got mandated to you under the League of Nations.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Syria is French."]—France is your Ally. These territories also produce long staple cotton. Long staple cotton is, if my technical informers are correct, necessary for producing that form of cotton thread which is necessary in turn for the production of artificial silk. Artificial silk, in the present degraded state of the world's market, when the peoples of Europe and America are short of purchasing power, has driven pure silk practically off the market. The pure silk interests are up against your cotton interests, and I protest, and were it possible to take this particular paragraph apart from the other paragraphs dealing with Austria, I should oppose this Resolution, because I believe that by this means, by this endeavour to hold on to the Sudan for the purpose of exploitation, and in conflict with France and America, for that is what it means, you are driving as straight as you can go to another world war. Hon. Members opposite do not crowd those Benches and support these Resolutions in the interests of liberty, in the interests of equality, in the interests of justice, but in the interests of the Stock Exchange, in the interests of the bankers, in the interests of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in the interests of the—[HON. MEMBER: "Silk worms."]—Hon. Members opposite little know how much good they are doing the Communist party by this discussion. It is precisely the kind of thing which shows to the toiling masses of this country what you are like, and that is why I have come here. You are here in the interests of the—

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to return to the point.

Mr. NEWBOLD: If you were to assist me a little more in getting order, as you would, I believe, in other cases—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite out of order for the hon. Member to comment or the action of the Chair.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I apologise, Mr. Chairman, but you must, I think, understand that the maximum provocation is being given to me. I am very sorry if I have offended against the rules of this House. I am a party of one. It is 614 to 1. I repeat again it is in the interest of the bondholder, of the banker, of the Chambers of Commerce, of the bill broker, of the cotton manufacturer and of the whole capitalist class that you are rolling up in your forces upon those Benches. I give my general support to this matter of the loan to Austria. My opposition and my protests so far as I can make them are to this matter of the endowment of the building contractors who are engaged upon the dam in the Sudan. It is noticeable that this barrage project has the approval of a Committee presided over, I believe, by Sir Robert M. Kindersley. Sir R. M. Kindersley, curiously enough, happens to be the chairman of Lazard Brothers. Lazard Brothers, curiously enough, have half their share capital held by S. Pearson and Sons and Clive Pearson. These people are the building contractors engaged upon the dam.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move in paragraph (a) to leave out sub-paragraph (iii).
I hope the hon. Member will not misunderstand me when I say that with regard to his remarks about Austria, many of us are in a large measure of agreement with him. But it is entirely wrongly that he says this is the first opportunity we have taken to save Austria or prevent the appalling catastrophe that has occurred to that country. If the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) had been a Member of the last Parliament he would have known that a few of us on this side of the House took every single occasion, very often even later in the night than this, to draw attention to the heinousness of the crime that was committed against Austria.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I fully accept that there was opposition

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. It was a sweeping assertion that he made. I only wish to make a remark about the
paragraph which deals with Austria at this stage because I wish to move an Amendment to the first part of the Resolution. But before doing so I think it is right to say that the objection we have on this side, at least, speaking for the Members I can speak for—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are a party of one!"]—I have been in a party of one before. The objection to the loan is not that it is an attempt—a belated attempt—to help the Austrian Government to get on its legs, but that it is wrapped up with conditions that are anti-democratic. The Austrian Parliament is practically forbidden to function in the direction of controlling finance. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get us to discuss finance at twenty-five minutes to one. The Austrian Parliament, as a body, is not allowed to have any say whatever on the subject of finance. It is a great blow at the great-principle of democracy and it mars this otherwise fairly good makeshift. Secondly, it is no use filling the coffers of the Austrian Government unless you do something to prevent the process which makes it necessary to give the money to Austria. The trouble is that, whereas Vienna is the only banking and business centre for Austria and because it was the capital, it has been made the transport nodel point for the river and railway transport for the whole Austrian Empire. When the Peace Treaty of St. Germain was torn up—incidentally largely by Lord Balfour, who is how responsible for this proposal—no effort or attempt was made to prevent the Succession States from putting up impossible tariff barriers. That is the trouble to-day with Austria. By prohibition or impossible taxes, the trade of Vienna and the port of Vienna could not get the raw material for its manufactures. That is why we have this instead of getting the vast indemnities which the Coalition parties promised in the General Election of 1918. I would like, to ask the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Foreign Office or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes to reply, whether any attempt has been made by our representatives at Geneva on the League of Nations to see whether it is possible to have some demolition of the tariff walls. Czecho-Slovakia is establishing herself as a new nation and Rumania and Jugoslavia are prevented from becoming so by these mad tariff walls. Of course, the
Government may be assisted in this endeavour by the same adverse vote they received to-night on a somewhat similar Motion. The only hope of Austria lies, firstly, in a real peace, I do not want to go into details, but I am sure hon. Members know what is meant.

The CHAIRMAN: That hardly comes within the Resolution, and the hon. Member's recent remarks have had no connection with it.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I was attempting to follow the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward), who objected to this security. Unless Austria gets a real peace, it is a bad security indeed. Before we vote on this matter we should invite the Government to say whether it is now possible to do something to remove the tariff wall which is ruining Austria: and, secondly, whether His Majesty's Government's action can be explained— making this proposal unnecesary and making the security for this loan better. There seem to be only two alternatives. What is the attitude of the Government towards a Danubian Federation or Zoll-verein, which I believe would solve the problem, or the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. C. Buxton) of the eventual union of Austria with Germany? It is along one of these lines—either a Danubian Federation for customs purposes, or union with Germany—that the continued existence of an economic independent Austria seems to lie. This loan will not be the last, unless some policy of that sort is adopted. Austria is not the last country which will have to be given such a loan.
The German mark is in the express train for Vienna. It is following the krone. We will be faced with similar and greater demands for preventing Germany from relapsing into chaos. I desire to limit this discussion by moving an Amendment. When that Amendment is disposed of it will permit a full discussion. I do not propose to allow the Sudan loan to pass without considerable examination and getting some information from the Government.
This sub-paragraph (iii) provides for the charging of fees. I hope we shall have information of what these will be. We are told that the purpose is to make the scheme self-supporting. Another
point is what is the charge going to be for companies, or bodies, or corporations who apply to the Committee set up by the Government for guarantees under this scheme. We want, after all, to encourage people to come to the Committee with reasonable schemes. If they are to be charged large fees, whether granted facilities or not, the smaller men will be frightened off, which would be extremely undesirable. There seems to be a tendency at present, looking at the previous sums granted and previous bodies favoured, on the whole to rather favour the larger corporations. I am certain that is not the intention of this House. The immensity and range of a company should not be any reason for preference in getting facilities or credits under this scheme. In order to get assurances on that point I propose my Amendment.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: It is very unfortunate that the most important range of subjects and interests covered by this Resolution should have to be discussed by this Committee at a quarter to one in the morning. I am sure, however anxious the House may be to terminate the Session, everybody who is seriously interested in the problems raised in this Resolution would prefer to sit a day or two longer than sit up all night; as a matter of fact, not discussing the merits of the Resolution at all. Hilarity grows very profusely after midnight. [An HON. MEMBER: "Closing time."] I doubt very much if the question of advances in the interests of trade, if questions relating to the present position of Austria—

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that a specific and narrow Amendment has been moved, and to that he must confine himself.

Mr. MacDONALD: It is absolutely impossible under these circumstances to discuss these matters. I was afraid I was slightly out of order while raising the more general question, and I wish seriously to discuss this matter later, and will bow respectfully to your ruling.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Surely we may have a specific reply as to how much these fees are to be. We are entitled to that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will state whether they will be such as to frighten off smaller corporations and whether they will be charged if facilities are granted or not.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what is the procedure; whether we can afterwards proceed to the more general discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: The procedure is the ordinary one. In this case a specific Amendment is moved and discussion must be confined to that. When that Amendment has been disposed of, other Amendments will be in order, or the general discussion may be resumed.

Mr. BALDWIN: The Act is merely being amended by giving power to charge and then it would be possible to say what was required and what would be the expense. The fees shall be kept as small as possible. I do not fear that the amount charged will prejudice any application for facilities under the Act.

Mr. PRINGLE: There is a specific question put by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young). He asked whether this power to charge was merely intended to cover expenses or an attempt to cover any risks?

Mr. BALDWIN: I had intended replying on that point. The charge will cover expenses.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will there be some indication of the sort of fees which will be charged when the Bill is printed?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is possible that I may give some indication on the Second Reading. I will try.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a, iii), to insert the words
Provided that no guarantee shall be given in respect of any capital undertaking outside the United Kingdom, or for the purchase of articles in connection therewith, where such undertaking would fee in competition with any British industry which is suffering from depression.
The point which is raised in my Amendment is one which has considerable interest to many British industries. I have been induced to move this Amendment by certain representations which have been made to me. These representations relate to an application which has already come before the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee. I do not know what has happened to it; I believe it has still
to be decided. This is an application for a grant for the purpose of erecting a new paper mill in Newfoundland. The application, I believe, has been made on behalf of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co., who are supplying the machinery. Undoubtedly, if the application be granted, employment will be given to workers in Armstrong's in manufacturing the; machinery. But another question arises in connection therewith, and that is, what is to be the position of those who are engaged in the paper industry of this country? They have, so far as I understand, not been heard at all by this Advisory Committee. This Committee proceeds simply by hearing applicants and refuses altogether to listen to any representations which may be made against the application. I am told that this scheme for a paper mill in Newfoundland has hung fire for a long time. Attempts have been made to raise capital for the purpose both in Canada and Newfoundland, and have failed. Now, however, with the aid of the guarantee and the British Government, the project is to go on, and the question which naturally arises is, is the credit of this country, and in particular the credit of those engaged in the paper industry of this country, to be used for the purpose of subsidising competition against themselves abroad?
That is the question which we must face, specially in the present depressed conditions of the paper industry. That industry has been going through a bad time. I believe it is somewhat better at the moment, but my information is that to-day there are 5,000 men out of work in the paper-making industry. It is, therefore, a very strange thing that we 6houId be considering a Bill, or the extension of a Bill under which competition with this depressed industry may be subsidised by the British Government and at the expense of the credit of the people who are suffering from this competittion. I put it that this Order was not contemplated when the Trade Facilities Act was passed in the first instance. You might have a similar case arising in regard to India. Some promoters might come forward and desire to start a new jute mill or a new cotton mill in Bombay. The machinery would be made probably in this country, but what is going to be the effect on Dundee or Lancashire of these methods? While you might be creating
employment in one industry, you might be creating unemployment in another. I have no objection to these industries being established abroad. I have no objection to the extension of the cotton or jute industry in India nor have I any objection to the extension of the wood-pulp industry in Newfoundland, but if these undertakings are to be started they should not be carried out by means of guarantees under this Act. I therefore propose that a limiting amendment should be introduced. The Trade Facilities Act is, in effect, a subsidy to industry, because it enables those industries to raise their credit on preferential terms. I am against subsidies as a general rule, but for the purposes of the present unemployment I am quite prepared to support, in these exceptional circumstances, this kind of subsidy. But I object to a subsidy being granted to people outside who are competing with us. I am not in favour of subsidising imports at the expense of the British taxpayer.
There are risks here. Here is a case where the capital could not be raised in Canada or Newfoundland, but had to be raised at the expense of the British taxpayer, and it is to be on the basis of the credit of the people who are to suffer from the competition. I say that this a perfectly reasonable proviso to introduce. It is in the interests of employment in this country. I have no objection at all to the Newfoundland paper-making industry going on provided it is done at its own charges and without the help of British trades, and I say the same of any industry abroad that is in the same position, but I object to the credit of the depressed industries of this country being, utilised to increase competition against us. I should have expected the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut,-Colonel Croft) would have supported that.
When the idea of Imperial Preference was first mooted by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain he suggested, and it was a sound idea, that the development of the Empire should be carried out on these grounds, that the Empire would produce the raw materials themselves and that we should do the manufacturing. It was contended then that he was basing the Empire on a schedule of forbidden industries and he withdrew it. But the new Tariff Reformer wants to subsidise these industries in the Colonies at the-
expense of the British taxpayer. That is sound neither from the British nor the Imperial point of view. I beg therefore to move this Amendment, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give it his consideration.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I wish to ask if it is to be a condition of these credits that all possible purchases are to be made in this country? I see there is to be an advance of £10,000 to the tin mines in Cornwall. Is that a name which has any geographical significance, and are the mines in Cornwall?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure it is not for the convenience of the Committee that I should be asked questions with regard to every scheme on which the Committee has reported. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), I hope that the Committee will not adopt his Amendment, although at first sight, it seems that it has a good deal to be said for it. The number of cases in which advances have been made outside this country have been but a small proportion of the total amount. The whole object of the Trade Facilities Act was to help to provide employment in this country, and it is an essential condition

10. A.M.

of all contracts made under it that all material should be obtained in this country, wherever the contract may be placed. Therefore when business does come forth in any Dominion or in India it will give substantial employment in this country. There is a strong prima facie reason for allowing the business to go through and securing an order which can be placed promptly at a time when we need orders very badly. I would go this far with the hon. Member. I think that it is desirable to examine very carefully what the condition is with regard to industries in this country, and I can assure him that we do that, and I can assure him that that has been done with regard to these works in Newfoundland, and I think that opinion in this country is unanimous that the completion of such works will not seriously damage any industry in this country. That obviously is not the opinion held in that industry, but I think there is a very strong case for my view. With regard to the tin mine I understand that it was a misprint for Lelant, which is in Cornwall.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 195.

Division 13.]
AYES.
[1.4 a.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hill, A.
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hinds, John
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Barnes, A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Saklatvala, S.


Batey, Joseph
Hogge, James Myles
Salter, Dr. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bonwick, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowdler, W. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buckle, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simpson, J. Hope


Burgess, S.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Chapple, W. A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Lansbury, George
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Collison, Levi
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Darbishire, C. W.
Leach, W
Thornton, M.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lunn, William
Tout, W. J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
M'Entee, V. L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
March, S.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Dunnico, H.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Warne, G. H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morel, E. D.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Mosley, Oswald
Westwood, J.


Foot, Isaac
Nichol, Robert
Wheatley, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murnin, H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Nicol, Robert
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hancock, John George
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harris, Percy A.
Phillipps, Vivian



Hartshorn, Vernon
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hastings, Patrick
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Pringle and Mr. Lyle Samuel.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben



Her[...]otts, J.




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Penny, Frederick George


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Grigg, Sir Edward
Peto, Basil E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Philipson, H. H.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Hall, Re-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Pielou, D. P.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Halstead, Major D.
Privett, F. J.


Baldwin, Rt Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Raine, W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Harrison, F. C.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Remer, J. R.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Berry, Sir George
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Betterton, Henry B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Blundell, F. N.
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Brass, Captain W.
Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bruford, R.
Houfton, John Plowright
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bruton, Sir James
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Singleton, J. E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Clayton, G. C.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lane-Fox, Lieut-Colonel G. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sutcliffe, T.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lever, Sir Arthur L.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Titchfield, Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lorimer, H, D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lougher, L.
Tubbs, S. W.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Wallace, Captain E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Ednam, Viscount
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)
Wells, S. R.


Elveden, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Whitla, Sir William


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Windsor, Viscount


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Winterton, Earl


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wise, Frederick


Forestler-Walker, L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nail, Major Joseph
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Frece, Sir Waiter de
Nesbitt, J. C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)



Gates, Percy
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Lieut.-Col. Gibbs and Major Barnston.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Paget, T. G.



Goff, Sir R. Park

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." A continuation of this discussion is absolutely impossible. It is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure to discuss such important matters at this hour.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We are glad to hear of course what the leader of the Labour Opposition has said.
[An HON. MEMBER: "Leader of the Opposition."] I am in opposition too. The matters which are being discussed now, especially that part of the Resolution about which there will be the most controversy, are of the most vital importance and it is unfair that the Committee should be asked to consider them at this time of night. I see no reason whatsoever why the House of Commons should not sit an extra week, if necessary,
to discuss the many main questions which are involved in this important Resolution and other matters. It is quite unnecessary to sit until the small hours of the morning like this. I made a proposal at the beginning of the Session that we should meet at 11 o'clock—a much better proposal than to discuss intricate matters of this kind at a quarter past one in the morning. I do hope hon. Members who have some regard for the necessity of financial control over expenditure will support us in this Motion. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not put forward this Motion to embarrass the Government, but if there is one thing the constituencies and the public are determined to have either from this Parliament or any future Parliament, it is financial control over the Executive. We cannot consider these things properly at this time of the morning. At least I can —I happen to be able to use my head at this time of the morning but I cannot get the information I require from the Government. If we are to keep a tight grip on finance we must not attempt to pass a financial measure of this kind at this hour. That is absolutely fundamental and quite apart from anything else I do not want to support it.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not a case of obstruction, which does not much appeal to me, but a case of substance. These matters in reference to the Austrian loan are matters of real grave national importance. They are not suitable to be discussed in this kind of temper and hilarity. After all, a good many things get said in the House of Commons for which none of us are the worse, but they are read and considered, and I am bound to say that when you have at the present time the spectacle of what was once a great European State going down into collapse, to discuss it in the temper in which we shall undoubtedly discuss it between two or three in the morning is a great mistake, and the Government would be well advised to postpone it until a time when we shall discuss it with more gravity and more sense.

Mr. BALDWIN: I would remind hon. Members who have spoken that this is not the only opportunity of discussing these matters. This is merely a Financial
Resolution which has to go through two stages to-night and to-morrow night before the Bill on which these Resolutions are based can be printed and circulated to the House. There will then be the-Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. HOGGE: There are two other Bills the same day.

Mr. BALDWIN: There will be the Committee stage and the Third Reading and so I cannot see that there is not ample opportunity to discuss what I quite agree is a very important matter. We have now been discussing the Resolution about two hours and most of the discussion has been about Austria. The time at our disposal to get the business of this Session is limited through and I must ask the Committee to let me get the Committee stage of this Resolution to-night.

Mr. HOGGE: This a story that we hear from the Treasury Bench every time. There is absolutely no substance at all in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied in regard to the time of the House. In the first place, the Second Reading of this Bill is suggested for Wednesday. It is preceded by discussion on the Safeguarding of Industries. On the same day you have down the Second Reading of the Canadian Cattle Embargo Bill and to make a pretence that we should not discuss it to-night because there will be ample time on Wednesday is sheer nonsense. My right hon. Friend is one of the best Parliamentarians in the House and he knows that ruse. He has fallen back on the oldest excuse that has come from the Treasury Bench. What is the trouble about time? We are sent here to represent our constituents. There is no reason under the sun why we should rise on the first debate, and moreover we were not brought here to consider this matter, but Ireland and Ireland only. That was the express answer of the Prime Minister when anybody on this side of the House asked for a day to discuss foreign affairs. We were told no, this was an Irish Session and we were to devote ourselves entirely to that. When we have done that and given a Third Reading to both Irish Bills, they come forward with fresh legislation, because they want the House up for some reason or other. The most important discussion on any Bill is the Financial Resolution, which determines the principle of that Bill.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Tell that to the unemployed in Edinburgh.

Mr. HOGGE: They are in East Edinburgh and they increased my majority. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), who is making himself very comfortable on the Back Bench, will have ample opportunities any time he comes down to East Edinburgh to tell the unemployed I prevented them from getting work. Either the Government are right or wrong. If they want fresh legislation such as this, they should give the House of Commons ample and full time to discuss it. The only reason they can give for their present action is that the House has expressed a desire to get up next week. Nobody has expressed that wish except the Government and the supporters of the Government.

Mr. HERBERT: Leave the Government alone.

Mr. HOGGE: I am not sent here to leave the Government alone. No one on this side of the House wants to get up before we have given ample consideration to the subjects we are asked to discuss. It is for the Government to do the same as we are prepared to do in Opposition. We shall vote in favour of the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to join in the protest against going on to-night and to say, as I said on the first afternoon of the Session, that the House should continue to sit until we have dealt with the great problem—dealt with it not only by talking, but action—concerning the unemployed. I am asking the Committee and especially the Government to consider the effect of legislating in the sort of fashion we are to-night. The one charge against the House of Commons which is made outside, and which makes for the Soviet point of view—that its machinery is worn out—is the sort of spectacle we are witnessing to-night. We are not legislating, we are not considering, but talking and talking. There are other ways. We have done a very considerable amount of shouting this evening. That does not add to common sense and decency at all. The point is that you cannot, without discussion, sensibly make laws for any country. You shout when we talk in a certain fashion as if you did not come here to talk and discuss. That shows how thoroughly ignorant you must be of
the function of this place, which is to take the proposals laid before it and discuss them in a common-sense manner. [Interruption.] I was here as early as probably anyone, and I would suggest that if anyone should talk with little authority—

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: As a new Member may I ask whether we have to address you, Mr. Chairman, or other Members?

The CHAIRMAN: The rule is for Members to address the Chair.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is also a rule when an interjection is made for the speaker to answer that interjection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Through the Chair."] It is this sort of thing which causes workmen outside to say that this House has outgrown its usefulness. We are here to-night discussing three very important questions, each one of which would take, in the multitude of us here, some hours to discuss. It is not our fault we are met in the sort of way we are, with the whole body of the House discussing in a general sort of manner. You, Mr. Chairman, might not allow me to proceed along the line of how it ought to be done. The point I wish very emphatically to make is that to go on through the small hours of the morning discussing these matters with the frame of mind and the atmosphere which accompanies it, will only make people outside—and they are taking notice because you have us here—understand how useless is this body for doing useful work for the community. I hope the Government will consent to the Motion to report Progress and allow us to discuss this question when fresh, and no one is fresh now, not even Ministers. They all look quite sleepy.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am convinced that the arguments of Members on this side are having an effect. It is obvious hon. Members opposite are not in a fit condition to legislate any further.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Mr. LANSBURY: You are too sleepy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): I do not think the hon. Member meant to use the word in a derogatory sense.

Mr. SHINWELL: I was not referring to the mental fitness, but to the physical fitness of hon. Members opposite. I can
understand how my quite innocent observation regarding the vitality of hon. Members has been misunderstood. Some Members on this side expressed doubt as to the fitness of hon. Members on other occasions. I do not share that view. I wish to submit that there are cogent reasons for accepting the proposal made by this side. There has been a paucity of information and I do suggest that this question should be deferred to a more suitable occasion. If the Government is not inclined to do that, then I submit that the only reason that weighs with them is that they are afraid that, on a more suitable occasion, they will not be able to impress their views on the House. They may wish to take advantage of the early hour to press this proposal, well knowing that on another occasion they may not be successful. As a new Member, I did not anticipate that the hon. Members opposite and the occupants of the Treasury Bench would try to press through such important proposals as these. We expected that proper methods might be adopted for important matters of this kind. We are rather disappointed. I am quite sure that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench have no desire to disappoint the expectations of the new and inexperienced Members on this side, and I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to the quite harmless proposal which has been made.

Mr LYLE-SAMUEL: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a little more explicit as to the occasion on which we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question, whether he can give an assurance that this very serious matter of a loan to Austria shall be taken in the working hours of the day. It seems to me that the amount is so large that that is a reason which we should have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fullest information. We have had the minimum of information. We are told that this is part of a general scheme outlined by the League of Nations, but the Prime Minister said during the Election that we cannot be the policeman of the world. Surely also he implied, by his reference to economy, that we cannot be the bankers of the world. Here we are asked, as one of the first things, to be parties to a scheme which we are told is inspired
by a decision of the League of Nations, but a scheme inspired at this stage of world events by a League of Nations with America left out. How can we hope to assist in the financial rehabilitation of the world with America left out? We have to pay a hundred million dollars to America and they ask us now to find another six million pounds. The League of Nations, which was born in the brain of the President of the United States, are asking us to enter this scheme with America left out. It is a preposterous position that, at half-past one o'clock in the morning, we are asked to approve of this Resolution of nearly seven million pounds. America is in no sense involved in the general guarantee, the whole scheme is hotch-potched and nothing is thought out. All the taxpayer knows is that we are to pay America a hundred million dollars and that we have not a penny ourselves. There is no man to-day who cannot speak with very great earnestness upon the serious way in which we, the so-called victors of the Great War, have been steadily, by the incompetence and unwillingness of the Government to see the situation whole, deprived, not of any financial gain, because we do not wish that, but deprived of what is due to use, and at this hour we are asked to finance a further scheme of over six million pounds. I join in the protest which has been made, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the Committee before we leave when we shall have not only an opportunity but a full opportunity within the working hours of the day to discuss this matter?

Mr. BARNES: I should like to support the protest that has been made against the proceedings to-night, especially the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we shall pass through the same proceedings to-morrow night, namely, that we shall not enter upon the further consideration of these proposals until half-past eleven. Therefore, instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement being a proposal that would satisfy the Members on these benches, it is adding insult to injury. In these proposals, thirty-two million pounds of the taxpayers' money of this country is being used for the purpose of providing the necessary money for the Trade Facilities Act and for
the Loan to the Austrian Government. I consider that this thirty-two and a-half million pounds that the Committee is being asked to sanction is simply a pretence to cover up what one may legitimately argue is the past blundering of the Government. The seven and a half million we are asked now to provide in the form of a Loan is the outcome of the lack of foresight with which the Austrian situation was in the first instance considered. As far as the twenty-five millions proposed under the Trade Facilities Act is concerned, the object is to provide, I take it, more work for the unemployed in this country—more work in what we might call home industries. Members on these benches are not disposed to oppose that because we feel that, even if we do not agree in principle with this bolstering up of private enterprise out of public funds, we are anxious to provide employment.

Mr. REMER: On a point of Order. I would ask if this is in order or not?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite in order.

Mr. BARNES: The Committee is asked under exceptional conditions, which I consider do not lend themselves to business efficiency, to consider this matter. Hon. Members on the opposite benches claim to have a specific knowledge and responsibility for the conduct of the business affairs of this country, and I ask any one of them whether in their own business interests, in their own commercial affairs, they would deal with millions as this House is attempting to do to-night? No business in this country could conduct its affairs, dealing with vast sums of this description, as the House of Commons is endeavouring to discuss thirty-two million pounds of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to point; out that it is not a question of thirty-two millions of the taxpayers' money. The only thing in this Resolution is a guarantee of £25,000,000.

Mr. BARNES: I cannot understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking this House to guarantee a sum of twenty-five million pounds unless there was a possibility at least of that twenty-five million
pounds being called for. I submit that no business in this country would accept a contingent liability of twenty-five million pounds under the conditions in which we are considering the question to-night.
The point I want to develop is that we are asked to provide twenty-five million pounds—for what? Ostensibly to provide work for the unemployed, but actually to put the capital of certain business interests in this country in an exceptionally favourable position. I have been waiting for two or three hours for the purpose of discussing these proposals, and I find the time of the Committee has been wasted. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay here all night provided you can put one individual in work, but as far as the proceedings from half-past eleven till twenty minutes to two is concerned, we have wasted our own time and therefore I rise from the point of view of endeavouring to discuss these questions. If I am out of order I will give way, but with this contention, that the Government should not have asked the Committee to consider under these conditions a contingent liability of £25,000,000, and a direct loan to Austria of £7,000,000. I hope the Government will consider before next Session how far they can establish some more efficient Committee machinery which will enable Members to give detailed consideration to proposals of this sort before they reach the House of Commons.

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not propose to enter into the merits of the question; I only wish to put forward a few substantial reasons why the Government should accept this Motion to report Progress. I do not think that any Member would object to the ordinary routine Money Resolution being taken after eleven o'clock, but on this occasion we are dealing with what is a great deal more than a simple Money Resolution. It is, indeed, the foundation of a very considerable Bill, including a large question of policy. In the course of the discussion which we have had since 11.30 there has only been one section of this Resolution that has been at all fairly discussed, and even on that important question, the guarantee to Austria, the discussion has been con-
fined to a few back bench Members. For example, the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to make the important contribution to the Debate which undoubtedly he would have made.

Mr. HOGGE: Where is he?

Mr. PRINGLE: He is sitting next to you. The real opposition has come from this corner. In the first place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a very inadequate account of the proposals in opening the Debate, and though Amendments have been indicated there has been no inclination on his part to reply to the general discussion. There are many important points which I should have liked to have raised, but as I had only really one business point in relation to unemployment, I confined myself to that. As there are many other questions involved, I think the Government ought to agree to report Progress. I am quite sure that many hon. Gentlemen opposite would have given very different attention to the proposal which I made if it had been made earlier, when a report could have appeared in the newspapers, and when the importance of the position could have been appreciated by their constituents. They will have reason to regret their vote to-night. I know many constituencies where votes will be seriously affected by the votes which hon. Members have given in the small hours of the morning. I hold that it is not fair that hon. Members opposite should commit themselves simply out of loyalty to the Government at a time when they are not able to reflect and I am interposing now simply in the interests of the supporters of the Government. It is true that they are fresh from an election, and that another election is a long way off.

The loyalty of the hon. Gentlemen will be unimpaired for a considerable time.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see the relevance of the loyalty of hon. Members to the proposal to report Progress.

Mr. PRINGLE: My point was that in the small hours of the morning hon. Gentlemen opposite are more inclined to give their votes simply on the ground of loyalty to the Government, rather than on a consideration of the merits. There has been a progressive tendency in this House to minimise the importance of these financial resolutions. It is one of the oldest forms of the House and gives significance and importance to the Commons control of finance, that when an appeal is made for the expenditure of public money that appeal must originate in Committee of this House, and that there should be freedom of discussion. Consequently, it is prejudicial to those conditions, and to the control of the Commons over finance, that we should be discussing important matters of this kind at this time. In view of the fact that finance held such an important place in the last Election this is surely a strange way to treat pledges of economy on the occasion of the first financial proposal brought forward by the Government. The primary stage is being taken in the small hours of the morning when the interests of the taxpayer cannot be adequately safeguarded.

Mr. BALDWIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 102.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
[1.50 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Brass, Captain W.
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Davidson, J C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Bruford, R.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bruton, Sir James
Dawson, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Dixon, c. H. (Rutland)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burney. Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Ednam, Viscount


Cell, Lieut.-Col. W. C H. (Devizes)
Cadogan, Major Edward
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Elveden, Viscount


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Betterton, Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Blundell, F. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lorimer, H. D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gates, Percy
Lougher, L,
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Lumley, L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sandon, Lord


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Singleton, J. E.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Mercer, Colonel H.
Skelton, A. N.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Halstead, Major D.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Spears, Brig-Gen. E. L.


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Lord


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nall, Major Joseph
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Harrison, F. C.
Nesbitt, J. C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Harvey, Major S. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sutcliffe, T.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Titchfield, Marquess of


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Paget, T. G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Tubbs, S. W.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Penny, Frederick George
Wallace, Captain E.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, Basil E.
Wells, S. R.


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Philipson, H. H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Mood, Sir Joseph
Pielou, D. P.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Price, E. G.
Whitla, Sir William


Houfton, John Plowright
Privett, F. J.
Windsor, Viscount


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Raine, W.
Winterton, Earl


Hudson, Capt. A.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wise, Frederick


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)



Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Lieut.-Col. Gibbs and Major


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Barnston.


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Roundell, Colonel H. F.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hill, A.
Ritson, J.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hinds, John
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Batey, Joseph
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hogge, James Myles
Saklatvala, S.


Bonwick, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buckle, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burgess, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jowett, F. w. (Bradford, East)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Chapple, W. A.
Kirkwood, D,
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stephen, Campbell


Collison, Levi
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Leach, W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Tout, W. J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dunnico, H.
M'Entee, V. L.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Warne, G. H.


Fairbairn, R, R.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Foot, Isaac
Mosley, Oswald
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Muir, John W.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, J.


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Whiteley, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nichol, Robert
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hancock, John George
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Harris, Percy A.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Phillipps, Vivian
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hastings, Patrick
Pringle, W. M. R.



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Herriotis, J.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 187.

Division No. 15.]
AYES.
[2.0 a.m.


Adamson, w. M. (staff., Cannock)
Hinds, John
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnes, A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwall)


Batey, Joseph
Hogge, James Myles
Saklatvala, S.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bonwick, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buckle, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Burgess, S.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Simpson, J. Hope


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Colilson, [...]evl
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Darbishire, C. W.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Leach, W.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Tout, W. J.


Dunnico, H.
M'Entee, V. L.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Foot, Isaac
Mosley, Oswald
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Muir, John W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wheatley, J.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Newbold, J. T. W.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nichol, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Hancock, John George
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Harris, Percy A.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Phillipps, Vivian
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hastings, Patrick
Pringle, W. M. R.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Herriotts, J.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hill, A.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Davidson, J.C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Edmondson, Major A. J
Hood, Sir Joseph


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ednam, Viscount
Hopkins, John W. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Houfton, John Plowright


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Elveden, viscount
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hudson, Capt. A.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Berry, Sir George
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Blundell, F. N.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Brass, Captain W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gates, Percy
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bruford, R.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bruton, Sir James
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lorimer, H. D.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Grigg, Sir Edward
Lougher, L.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Lumley, L. R.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Halstead, Major D.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harrison, F. C.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Harvey, Major S. E.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Clayton, G. C.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Mercer, Colonel H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sutcliffe, T.


Nall, Major Joseph
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Nesbitt, J. C.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tubbs, S. W.


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Russell, William (Bolton)
Wallace, Captain E.


Ormshy-Gore, Hon. William
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Paget, T. G.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Samuel, A. HI. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Penny, Frederick George
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Whitla, Sir William


Peto, Basil E.
Sandon, Lord
Windsor, Viscount


Philipson, H. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Winterton, Earl


Pielou, D. P.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wise, Frederick


Price, E. G.
Singleton, J. E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Privett, F. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Raine, W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.



Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Lieut.-Col. Gibbs and Major


Rhodes, Lieut. Col. J. P.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Barnston.


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Original Question again proposed.

The CHAIRMAN: I select the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I only select it on the understanding that, in order to get a separate issue on this particular question, he makes a brief statement. The matter has been dismissed and I cannot allow further discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).
I move this Amendment in order to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office, to answer certain specific points. Before we give credit to Austria we are entitled to ask for certain assurances, because this loan is not the first, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Colonel L. Ward) has pointed out, and unless there is a change of policy on the part of the Government it will not be the last. This loan is only a sticking plaster to cover the ulcer. These are the questions I wish to put. What is His Majesty's Government's attitude towards the question of some means of inducing the Secession States to lower their tariff barriers? This matter was discussed at Genoa. The President of the Board of Trade gave expression to very admirable sentiments, but are we pressing this general policy of no more tariff walls with our associated Allies of Europe to-day? It is of vital importance, and there is no use our lending money—we will for the moment meet the emergency— unless there is some policy to induce these
countries to refrain from further tariff walls. I notice the Government make very strenuous efforts in reference to dynasties in a certain Balkan country. They can then move quickly and energetically. Are we going to veto for ever any attempt by Austria to join with the German Reich as one of her means of escape? We should have some authoritative statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Foreign Office representative. Thirdly, are we barring, or taking steps to promote, the great project of a Danube Confederation, which would give hope and life to Austria? Before we vote this sum of money we are entitled to some expression of opinion on this question of higher policy which will affect the future credit of Austria and save us from giving further assistance.

Colonel L. WARD: I rise to say a few words in support of the Amendment. It is 18 months since I found myself in the same Lobby with the Mover of it, but I agree with him in this case. I should like to have some assurance as to what steps the Austrian Government intend to take with regard to the reduction of the number of its State officials, and the question of what steps they mean to take to make their railways pay their way. I also wish to ascertain the Government's view with regard to a possible union, I do not say of Austria with the German Reich, but with a portion of Austria, The difficulty has always been the junction with Bavaria. That would place Austria in the position of being a self-supporting entity, which could feed and support itself and would act as a bar to the overweening ambition of Prussia.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think it is a matter of regret that there should he any opposition to this loan. The only criticism that should be made is that it has come far too late. It has been for a long time asked for by Austria. A year ago, at the Assembly of the League of Nations, the Austrian Government put forward its claim and stated its case for a loan of this kind. They said the loan was absolutely indispensable to save it from a general debacle. I understand, according to your ruling, Mr. Hope, that we must not discuss it at any great length, but whatever one may say about the past, whatever one may think of the wisdom of what is proposed now, if the House of Commons—I am sure they are not going to do it—were to refuse this loan, there would be a financial and economic catastrophe from which this alone can save us. I do not want to argue the matter further, but I would like to say that a scheme which has been propounded by the League of Nations, which has been worked out in detail by the responsible statesmen of that body, comes with a force and appeal to this Committee which I do not think we can resist. Objection has been made from another quarter that the conditions which have been laid down are too stringent and too strict.
I think this loan is necessary, but the sole condition on which the money can be found is that Austria sets her house in order and provides the necessary guarantees. When you have a State demoralised, overrun by State officials, with her State industries run at immense loss, with its exchange hopelessly collapsed, then under these circumstances, if we can be assured that within two years, as a result of this loan, there is a reasonable chance of putting this State once more upon its feet and preventing an economic collapse which would not merely affect that State but would affect other surrounding and neighbouring States and the whole of Europe, then it seems to me that it would be an act of levity and of want of consideration to refuse this loan.

Mr. BALDWIN: A number of questions have been asked on the subject of the Austrian loan, and I think this may be a fitting opportunity for me to reply to them. The first criticism on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) was a complaint that this was a waste of the tax-
payers' money. It is not a waste of the taxpayers' money, because it is only a guarantee of a market loan. If the loan is not subscribed, there will be no guarantee. He spoke as if this country was compelling the taxpayers to subscribe to the loan. Nothing of the kind. That is not the case, either in this country or in any of the other guaranteeing countries. This is an ordinary market loan, and the guarantee is of the principal and interest by the guaranteeing countries in the terms stated in the White Paper.

Colonel L. WARD: It is the taxpayer who guarantees. He will be compelled to pay if this loan is subscribed privately and if Austria is unable to pay.

Mr. BALDWIN: If there is default the guaranteeing countries are responsible, but I am trying to show in my few introductory remarks that the security is fairly good, and I have one or two things to say that I think will give pleasure to the Committee. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. C. Buxton) spoke with knowledge, as he always does, on the subject of Austria and contiguous countries and he alluded to the terrible terms inflicted on that country by the League of Nations. Of course the terms are stringent. The terms in a case like this must be stringent, but, after all, the Austrian Parliament itself has now accepted them fully. They have passed certain necessary laws already to give effect to what has been proposed. They have approved of control and of the Controller, and they have given an undertaking to dismiss the army of those officials of whom we have heard to-night, and I have every reason to believe that the efforts they are making are genuine efforts which will be sustained; but I should like the Committee to bear in mind that the Controller, after all, is the responsible person, and he will only sanction the issues and advances from the loan so long as he is satisfied that the Austrian Government is fulfilling its part of the contract and carrying out the necessary measures as they go on for the balancing of the Budget, and the reduction of the expenditure necessary to attain that end. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hull (Colonel L. Ward) asked about the money we had already advanced to Austria. I am afraid the chance of seeing a good deal of that money again is remote,
but probably, if money had not been spent as it was spent, in trying to save Austria, the effort which we are now making with greater hope to save her would have been absolutely impossible. The money we hope will be repaid out of this loan is £2,250,000, which was the last amount issued to that country.
There were three specific points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He said he would like to see the removal of the tariff walls in that part of Europe. No one would like to see that better than I. I have repeatedly stated in various speeches I have made, both inside this House and outside, that one of the greatest difficulties we have to face at the present day in restoring our trade with Europe is that perverse spirit of nationality which has insisted on erecting barriers and higher barriers than ever before round their frontiers. Whatever we can do to remove them, the Committee may rest assured we will do. But, after all, tariffs are a matter of internal politics, and I must say that the economic history of this country does not afford one very much hope that any endeavours we may make will be successful.
The other points that the hon. and gallant Member raised were points of great interest, but they do not, in my opinion, touch on this Financial Resolution or on the Bill. The Bill to be founded on this Financial Resolution is to guarantee a loan to Austria, as that term is at present understood and understood by the League of Nations, and the security to be put up by that country is a security which the League of Nations, which organised the terms, thought sufficient to meet the claims that would be made by the loan for interest. I think I have dealt with all the points, and I hope that, so far as Austria is concerned, the Committee may be pleased to sanction this stage to-night.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is not my intention to rise for the purpose of opposing the Austrian loan, which I regard as a tardy recognition of the claims of humanity. I have been rather surprised at some of the criticisms offered to this loan, because when one considers the condition of Austria at the present moment one has to remember that that
condition is largely due to the policy pursued by ourselves and our Allies at the partition of the Austrian Empire. I do not know how many Members have been in Austria. I was there two years ago.

Colonel L. WARD: I was there three months ago.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am making no charge against the hon. and gallant Member or anybody else, but when I was there I saw sights that I hope never to see again. I went to some of the schools set up in Vienna for the purpose of looking after the children who had been crippled badly as the result of malnutrition that had resulted from the operations of the War, and was contributed to after the War by the policy pursued by ourselves and our Allies. I saw children from six to seven years of age who were no bigger than children of three years of age here. I saw them walking with the posture of little apes rather than humans, because of the fact that their hips had been smashed because they were unable to carry the weight of the bodies. But the point I wish to make is that, at the very moment when the Austrian Government were making strenuous efforts to deal with the horrible effects of the War, when milk was at a premium, when we were allowing Hungary to strip Austria of milch cows, there was only an allowance for children of one-fourth of a pint of milk every two days. That was the position with which the Austrian people had to grapple.
Reference has been made to the number of officials in Vienna. What had we done in Austria and Vienna? We had brought Austria down until she was a small province with some 6,000,000 of a population. Vienna, the capital, is a city that has been built and developed for a population of 3,000,000 people. In Vienna there is a very large official population. It was the centre of the economic life of the Austrian Empire. It was the centre of the financial system and had a large number of people gathered together who, from the point of view of agriculture, were of no use, and from the point of view of their work in their official capacities they had no work to do. I discussed the matter with prominent members of the Austrian Government, and I said: "Why have you so many officials?" They said: "What
can we do; these people have no trade; they have no occupation." I know there are large sections of the Viennese people who do not like the terms upon which this loan is being granted. They have agreed because of force majeure. They have been driven to it by sheer necessity. It is not wise, therefore, to make a boast of the terms having been accepted. They are accepted almost at the point of the bayonet.
I would like to know the terms on which the loan is to be issued. Under Article 1, I am told that the capital and interest of the securities shall be free from all taxes, dues or charges for the benefit of the Austrian State. The gentlemen who lend their money are to be free of Austrian taxes and charges. They are going out of the country with all the plunder intact. That does not seem to me to be fair. I do not believe in absentee landlordism or absentee capitalism. Then there is another thing. The expense of the issue will, I suppose, carry the same rate of interest also free of tax and free of charge. And then you laugh at the charge made by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: All the French loans are free of tax.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Then the terms say:
The British and French Governments, which are entitled by the terms of their contracts to complete reimbursement of the amount of their advances out of the proceeds of the first loan, accept a scale of progressive repayment, charging the larger part of the repayment on the later instalments of the loan.
So we are lending them one lot of money in order that they may repay the former lot of money. It is the old game we have played in Egypt for the benefit of the Rothschilds before. You are putting Austria in pawn in the same way as you put Egypt in pawn, and in the interests of the same kind of people. I protest against the terms, though I recognise that the loan is essential to Austria. It is just about time we should back up the plea made by the Chancellor a moment ago. I wish he would take it a little more to heart. He protested against the growth of acute nationalism in Central Europe. After all, whom are we trying to punish? The people in Austria as far as the late War was? concerned were absolved from real blame,
and as far as responsibility was concerned, the real blame was charged against the Hapsburg Dynasty, and not against the Austrian people. They were no more responsible than we were. My opinion is that the people responsible for the War have been punished by exile, by losing their honours and privileges, and it was an act of grace, of common justice, common mercy and common humanity that as far as we could we should give such terms to the Austrian people as would help to redeem them from the pit of misery in which they find themselves. By doing that we shall place upon ourselves a crown of honour and glory which would last for generations to come.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: As a new Member, I am surprised at the absolute lack of information supplied by the Treasury Bench regarding the investments of 3½ millions in the Sudan. I understand, if I am in order, that I may discuss any part of this Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: No, I am afraid not.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Only Austria.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am one of those who refuse to join the chorus of praise to the Government for this Bill which provides money for a loan to Austria. It is not, in my judgment, an act of humanity to the people of Austria or to the Austrian Government. It is a coldblooded commercial transaction such as one might expect to get from hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. D. HERBERT: It is from the League of Nations.

Mr. SHINWELL: That was an unintelligent interruption, and I think it must be obvious even to such intelligence as that of hon. Members on the other side, because we have been told the League of Nations has nothing to do with this at all. It is precisely the state to which hon. Members have got. They will believe anything. I want to submit that this alleged loan to Austria is going to bind the shackles more firmly on the Austrian people than before. If the people of this country applied the same principles as those for which they fought the War, the rights of small nations, the people of Austria would now be obtaining justice from this country and the Allies, and would not be dependent on the charity that is offered to it. It is simply a com-
mercial transaction, and the Austrian people have very little to gain from such a transaction. I would submit there has been very little information which we are entitled to get, even at this hour of the morning, which would enable us to judge as to the disirability of a loan of this kind and its advantage to the Austrian people. The imperturbability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is most alarming on occasions, but I can assure him that even that imperturbability will be disturbed if Members at this stage do not obtain the information to which they are justly entitled. I repeat that we have nothing to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury Bench for, and that the Austrian people will find themselves in precisely the same position. I should like to say one word in conclusion with regard to the statement that has been made with reference to the desirability of reducing the official staffs of the Austrian Government. If such action were taken in response to any inducement which the Government of this; country may offer, or any pressure this Government may bring to bear on the Austrian Government, it would only

have the effect of weakening the economic position of the Austrian Government. You will dispossess certain officials in the Austrian Government and throw them out of their present occupation, compelling them to subsist upon the charity of the Austrian Government or their own friends. It seems to me an absurd condition of this loan that the Austrian Government should reduce the number of its officials. I suggest that the Treasury Bench might take this matter up and reduce the number of unnecessary officials nearer home before they attempt to impose such conditions upon the people of Austria. We have received practically no information at all. We are entitled to information, and if we do not receive it now we shall raise the subject perhaps to-morrow or before this Bill has proceeded through all its stages.

Mr. BALDWIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 97.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[2.40 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hood, Sir Joseph


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Houfton, John Plowright


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Ednam, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)


Baird, At. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Elveden, viscount
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Falcon, Captain Michael
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)


Berry, Sir George
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Betterton, Henry B.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Blundell, f. N.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R


Brass, Captain W.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Lorimer, H. D.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lougher, L.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Bruford, R,
Grigg, Sir Edward
Lumley, L. R.


Bruton, Sir James
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Halstead, Major D.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mercer, Colonel H.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Harrison, F. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nall, Major Joseph


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nesbitt, J. C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Kernel Hempstead)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Paget, T. G.


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Russell, William (Bolton)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Penny, Frederick George
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peicy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Tubbs, S. W.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain E.


Peto, Basil E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull>


Philipson, H. H.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Pielou, D. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wells, S. R.


Price, E. G.
Sandon, Lord
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Privett, F. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Raine, W.
Singleton, J. E.
Whitla, Sir William


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Skelton, A. N.
Windsor, Viscount


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Earl


Remer, J. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Wise, Frederick


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wolmer, Viscount


Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Stanley, Lord
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Sutcliffe, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major


Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Barnston.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff,, Cannock)
Hinds, John
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Barnes, A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Saklatvala, S.


Batey, Joseph
Hogge, James Myles
Salter, Dr. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bonwick, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buckle, J.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Simpson, J. Hope


Burgess, S.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Kirkwood, D.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Spencer, H, H. (Bradford, S.)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Colilson, Levi
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Tout, W. J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
M'Entee, V. L.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Muir, John W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Westwood, J.


Foot, Isaac
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wheatley, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Nichol, Robert
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Phillipps, Vivian
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hastings, Patrick
Riley, Ben



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Herriotts, J.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Mr. Ammon and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Hill, A.




Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c).
The previous discussions were on Amendments which I do not think aroused great hostility on this side of the Committee, but I now come to an Amendment which raises issues of the first importance and on which I feel very deeply indeed. Paragraph (c) deals with the guaranteeing of the principal and interest of any loan raised, to the amount of 3½ million pounds, for erecting a barrage to the irrigation works at
Gezireh. No doubt this scheme may be said to be very necessary in order to supply long-staple cotton, but the Sudan is not the only country which has long-staple cotton. We have East Africa, which is much more settled than the Sudan and much less liable to be troubled. The Sudan is a country which is not a safe field for British investment. I would not put any of my money there, and I would not advise anyone else to put theirs. Egypt to-day is a smouldering volcano. I do not want to go into details to-day of the treatment of the inhabitants of that country by the present Egyptian Government. The regime of martial law, which I am sorry to see is supported by
British bayonets, is bound, sooner or later, to lead to trouble in that country. In these circumstances I regard it as very foolish to guarantee loans in that country. It is perfectly true that we have an outlet from the Sudan into the Indian Ocean. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Red Sea!"] After all, the Red Sea is only an arm of the Indian Ocean. I suppose it would be possible to secure our hold on the Sudan even with a hostile Egypt. That is one reason why this proposal is put forward at an inopportune moment. I repeat, it is not only to the Sudan we can look for supplies of cotton. I could suggest one vast cotton-growing area that has hardly been touched and which could be easily made available at no expenditure whatsoever, namely, the cotton-growing area of Turkestan and Bokhara. Very good cotton is grown there, and it can be developed there for the use of our textile industries without any guaranteed loans and without a penny piece being spent. Therefore, I think that the plea that unless we get the cotton crop in the Sudan we will have a shortage of cotton is not a valid plea, and it is not fair to ask the British taxpayer to guarantee this large sum of money. Further, I cannot see that there is much employment coming to the people of this country from this scheme. I do not suppose a barrage needs very much machinery. I suppose a great number of pumps and so forth will be required, but the employment supplied in this country will not be at all comparable with the amount of money we are to guarantee. It may and will provide a great deal of employment for people of the Sudan, but at the present moment one of the grievances that is felt up and down this country is that our Government has been extremely slow and lax in providing useful work for our own unemployed. I am going to voice a very-real grievance that I feel in this respect. To-day I had a question on the Paper with regard to a very well-known scheme of land reclamation in the Humber. I mention this not because it is more important than other schemes, but because I know the details of it better. This is a proposal to run a sea-wall.

The CHAIRMAN: The Humber is not a tributary of the Nile.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Would I not be entitled
to point out that this money could be better spent by guaranteeing loans for works in our own country?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then I will not pursue the Humber scheme any further. But I do say, speaking generally, that if there are any guarantees to be given for great construction schemes of this sort, there are many openings for them in our own country, and it is not right, while we have vast numbers of unemployed workmen in this country, to guarantee schemes in the Sudan, or anywhere else outside the confines of these islands. (Jet our own people to work at once, and then perhaps we can proceed with schemes of this sort, and I repeat that little employment will be provided to the people of this country for many years coming from this barrage plan on the Blue Nile or the White Nile, or wherever it is. I do not go into details, nor is it necessary.
I propose to divide, if I can get a Teller, and I hope the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) will support me and speak in support of me. I therefore propose my Amendment.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not take it in any offensive spirit if I say that he has made a typical "three in the morning" speech.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Whose fault is it that the speech is made at three in the morning?

3.0 p.m.

Mr. McNEILL: But there are two kinds of three-in-the-morning speeches. We on this side of the Committee are quite prepared to carry this on till any hour in a good-natured spirit, but that is for the Committee to decide. I do not quite know, after listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, how far the Committee would like me to go into the whole question. I do not believe that at this stage there is any desire to go into it at any great length. The hon. Member says it is an inopportune moment to raise the question of this loan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing the Resolution, mentioned the importance of this
part of the Resolution and of the Bill to the interests of Lancashire, and I think he, mentioned that only last July a very important deputation on this very point went to the Foreign Office. The deputation was introduced to the, Secretary of State by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and one of the spokesmen who put the case strongly, as representing Lancashire, was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). Consequently, the opposite side of the House, through recognised leaders, have intimated that they are extremely interested in this particular Measure, and it was in answer to the very strong representations made on behalf of a great many intereste in Lancashire—I am quite sure by the organisations representing both employers and employed in the textile trade—that a promise was made that this Rill would be introduced at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, when we are told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has a rival scheme for the Humber, that this is an inopportune moment, I think that the deputation that I have mentioned is relevant at all events to that consideration. I really do not know beyond that, and beyond what my right hon. Friend said in introducing the Resolution, what it is necessary for me to say.
The fact is that this is a continuation of work that has been going on for a good many years. The scheme for the development of this part of the Sudan originated, I believe, as long ago as 1900 or 1910. There were Loan Acts passed before the War in 1913 and 1914. The War came before any great amount of work had been done. For various reasons it was thought not desirable to break off altogether during the War, and a certain amount of work continued. After the War it was found, as in so many other works, that everything had gone up, and the scale upon which the scheme had been undertaken in 1913 and 1914 was no longer applicable from a financial point of view, and a new Measure was brought before this House. Estimates were got out, and in 1919 a Bill was passed. Unfortunately, even that estimate proved insufficient for the necessary work. In 1921 it was found that the scheme could not be carried out for the money, and new estimates were prepared. An expert
was sent out representing the Treasury, and tenders were invited. The lowest tender was accepted, and now there is the necessity of coming to this House for sanction to give a guarantee to the Government of the Sudan for the money necessary to carry out the work upon the new basis. If the Committee desired it—I think it would be more proper on the Second Reading of the Bill—I could show the principles upon which the economies of the scheme rest; the amount of cotton that it is expected to grow, and the estimated price, and also that, in the opinion of those who have gone fully into the matter, even at the very much increased cost the scheme ought to pay.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What is the acreage?

Mr. McNEILL: The present acreage is 300,000, but the country which will be open to irrigation is ten times that, and it is important to bear in mind that the greater part of the present scheme, the plant, etc., will be sufficient for the whole of a very much larger scheme, so that it does not mean that this proposal is merely proportionate to the area proposed to be irrigated immediately. The dam which it is proposed to make, and the main canal which is the most important part of the work, will be of use for a very much larger scheme of irrigation; it will only have to be supplemented from time to time by minor canalisation. It is important, therefore, for the Committee to bear in mind that there is a very large area which has been proved by experiment to be capable of bearing very fine cotton which can be brought into cultivation if the demand for cotton should justify it without a corresponding increase of cost. Under the circumstances, and seeing that all the great textile interests in Lancashire, who have gone into the matter very carefully, have pressed urgently for this measure, I think if there is any further information on the subject which the Committee would desire, I should defer it until the Report stage or the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: We are told there is to be an expenditure of £3,500,000 in addition to unstated and undefined expenses which have already been incurred. What these total expenditures are we do
not know, and the Under-Secretary is very careful indeed not to inform us. Secondly, he does not inform us of the name of the successful contractors. He told us there were six tenders and that the lowest tender was accepted but he stopped there. Further, he has not told us, and so far as I know the Committee is not in possession of the information from any other source, whether the scheme, if it be a success, is to be developed under State or under private enterprise. If it is to be an expenditure of public money for the purposes of increasing the wealth of particular people who get in the Sudan, and the scheme is to be financed by the British public for that purpose, it is necessary to have a full and frank statement to that effect now, but if the scheme is to be the financing of a State cotton-growing enterprise, a form of enterprise we have been told on every other platform in the recent Election is antagonistic to the fundamental principle for which the present Government stands, I think we ought to have that fact fully and frankly explained too. If the Sudanese cotton-growing experiment is to be effected under State management, under State control and for the benefit of the Sudanese Government, we ought to have an explanation of why it is, in the opinion of His Majesty's Ministers, that a State enterprise could be, in their opinion, successful, and why they are prepared to risk 3½ million pounds upon the State enterprise in the far Sudan, over which they have no means of direct control, when they continually object to financing similar enterprises in this country on the ground that such enterprise is inimical to the benefit and well-being of the British people. If this enterprise should be a failure, if there should be money lost, who is to make this good? Is the guarantee or provision made so that certain favoured cotton interests in this country can get a cheap subsidised supply of cotton at the expense of the British taxpayer? The Under-Secretary told us that he and the Government were impressed by the unanimity of the varied interests of a great deputation which went to the Government about a year ago. He said the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was there. I quite understand him being present; he is a Member for a Lancashire cotton Division.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was also present. What particular interest he had in this I do not know, unless he was there acting in the interest of the great Coats Thread Trust. We are entitled to be told, if it be the case, that the great cotton interests in this country, whether it be Lancashire cotton or Paisley cotton, are going to have, or have been promised or are in expectation of getting, any cheap subsidised supply of raw material for their future operations. We have already a trust in Scotland in sewing-cotton. It controls the market. They may raise or lower the prices of sewing-cotton as they choose. Are we now in this position, that the British taxpayer is going to subsidise a supply of raw material necessary for the operations of this Trust? I put it to the Under-Secretary that if it is right and proper that the British public should raise as a State enterprise a raw material for this industry, it is equally right and proper that they should run as a State enterprise the enormous cotton operating cotton trusts that exists. I think before the Closure is moved upon the Clause, the Under-Secretary should give us answers to the very pertinent questions asked, and not simply to the questions which are immaterial.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the dangerous principle underlying the proposals put forward to-night, and I strongly take the view which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has put to the Committee regarding this Sudanese scheme. There was a time when there were two parties in the House, both of which were interested in making loans and monetary grants. One was interested in taking up one group, and the other was interested in taking up another group. There is now a third party, and it has come to analyse the fundamental principle of these enterprises. We want to know something more than the people in the past wanted to know. It is very curious. We have sat here to-day a round of the clock and we have not had one word about the glories of private enterprise. Private enterprise has a wonderful power of abrogating rights. It puts forward schemes for the benefit of humanity, but
ask the unemployed to strive and fight when it is a question of really being enterprising and adventurous and taking risks. Then private enterprise is gone. From Plymouth to Pimlico there is not a word of private enterprise. I submit that the plan as put forward by the Government to-day in the shape of a guarantee is a worse burden upon the taxpayer and, if I may be allowed to say so, a more dishonest burden than if it were one thing or another. [An HON. MEMBER: "You pay your money and you take your choice."] If it were private enterprise and the private enterprise was asking the sanction of this House to invest money, and if we were merely feeling angry at them at securing in this House a share of future profits, that would be one way of getting the profit. If we are placing the burden upon the taxpayer and telling the taxpayer to take the profit, or lose out of it, that is another thing; but this clever device of a guarantee means that if profit ensues, private enterprise will get it, and if it is a loss the taxpayer will pay it. We are not so simple. We see through the scheme. It is a very unsound looking scheme of guaranteeing. It means the profits are mine and the losses are yours.
There is another point in regard to the former part of this Resolution. We were not told if any unconstitutional guarantee was exacted from the borrower, from the Sudan. We were told that if this House guaranteed 3½ million pounds to begin with, and subsequently went further into it, this country required 70,000 bales to begin with of long stapled Egyptian cotton. Why, may I ask, do we we feel so certain that cotton grown in somebody else's country, by the people of Sudan, shall for ever fall into our lap as our own property. We have not even got a Parliament in Sudan to smother and blackmail, and this is an unconstitutional law just as in the case of Vienna. We shall be told, perhaps, three years hence in this House to sanction an expedition to Sudan to save our guarantee. That instrument of blackmail upon any Parliament in the Sudan does not exist. The only weapon that does exist in the hands of the loam controllers is the British Army and the British Navy, and we shall one day be told that we have pledged our honour, we have granted the
loan, we have promised safety to the investors, and we shall want to sink a few hundred millions to butcher the Sudanese to get our wretched money. We are engaged in a new departure of human butchery. That is, again, history repeating itself. What right has this House to take it for granted that the poor Sudanese shall bond their necks and backs and go on growing cotton year after year? There is one very serious point. In the midst of starvation, hunger, distress, and death, many of the unemployed in this country heard the hollow talk of sympathy. Where is that sympathy to-night? It is all very well to give us misleading speeches when introducing new schemes, but we have got before us our past history. Let us know how in the past this country has been misled into the cultivation of raw material abroad, and how the workers of this country have been cheated out of the little work they had. Take jute. The workers of this country were always told that by the production of jute in Bengal, and by the British Government possessing it, the work of the workers in the Dundee works would be guaranteed for ever. At no time have the workers been so cheated by those who have the militaristic control. They were told that the people of India would never use for their own consumption more than 500,000 bales of jute. The people of Dundee used to work about five to six times that quantity of jute in the Dundee mills. But in 1921 the Dundee mills were compelled to do their work on only about 600,000 bales, while the jute mills in Bengal, where the jute grows, worked upon 4,300,0000 bales, or seven times as much as the Dundee workers. The workers in India were overworking, and the workers in Dundee had to shut up their shop. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not say why not, but when you were talking about jute production in India, did you tell the workers of Dundee it was to stop their work and start it in India. I am not asking whether yes, or whether no. I am asking you something more difficult than that. I am asking you to be honest. I am asking you to take the full history of finer cotton in India. You started the cultivation of finer cotton in India, and what happened? To-day, with the larger quantities of cotton, the Indian mills not only want to extend their industry, but demand that a prohibitive duty shall be placed upon
their goods. You might again ask, "Why not?" That is not the question we are discussing to-night. Do you, then, tell the workers of Lancashire that one of the possibilities of growing finer cotton in India would be to curtail their work and increase their unemployment?
I ask you to-day—I am not indulging in larger questions, but taking this matter by itself—I am asking you to-day as men of the world, why do you not realise that this very cotton, this long-staple cotton growing in the Sudan, will be a temptation to some of you, which in the past you never had the strength of character to resist, to take Sudanese slave labour and start your spinning milk in the Sudan? You will do it as you have done it all over the world. You will grow long-staple cotton, and then when you come to grips with the operatives of Lancashire, you, as you have done in the past, will be the people who will start cotton mills in the Sudan and shut up Lancashire. That is your history, which you cannot deny. You want to cover it up by talking of guarantees and investments and so on. I have heard of a gentle scheme where a paper was read by a Government expert sent out by the Manchester University, about a detailed plan of improving the staple of cotton in India, and one part of it was that the Indian farmer, the ryot, does not count. He is of no account, and one of the clauses of that scheme is that if the farmer fails to mix his seeds and spoils the profit of some Lancashire "boss," there shall be imprisonment for him up to six months.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see the relevancy of this.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I was just showing the possibilities of what will happen in the Sudan. I am now coming directly to the point. In performing these two enterprises, you will have to fall back on human beings in the Sudan. You will have to rely upon their labour to grow cotton out of Nature. You will fall back on your methods of exacting toil out of human beings to suit your profits, and you will then introduce similar Clauses of imprisonment for the farmers of the Sudan and everything to secure you long-staple cotton. If you succeed you will pocket the profits. If you fail you will not only throw the burden on the taxpayers, but, out of revenge for
your failure, you will lead this country into another murderous expedition against the Sudanese. That is the history of private enterprise guaranteed by Governments. The guarantee to the Sudan means the guarantee and nothing else. You will then come to the House, if we permit you, with long-drawn faces one day and say, "The position is critical, but our High Commissioner is taking the situation in hand and he wants a few battleships and a few battalions." We know that behind the thin end of this wedge of guarantees lies the same old miserable seeking of profits, not in an enterprising spirit, but in an unenterprising spirit, so that if you succeed in the gamble the profit and the money and the glory and everything is yours, and, if you fail, woe and death to those poor fellows in the country you tried to get, and the taxpayer who has to pay, not only for your loss, but for your expeditions of revenge.
Not only that, but as sure as the sun rises you will in process of time go further into the Sudan and you yourselves will be the bosses and the owners of the raw material. You will put factories there, you will exploit the labour with the positive design of ill-treating and degrading labour in this country. [Laughter.] I can see when the smiles are falsely put on. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered many questions of triviality, but when he was touching on certain principles he forgot them, or perhaps he was asked to forget them by his colleagues. The hon. Member for Mother-well (Mr. Newbold) put forward two glaring instances which, apart from any possible emotion in them, are certainly an underlying principle which generally, in outward life, you seem to discourage and discountenance, but which, in this very favourite appeal of the Government, you seem not only to encourage and tolerate, but even to patronise and practice. The Member for Motherwell pointed out that here, in the name of the League of Nations, a gentleman who is going to be a beneficiary himself recommends a loan, and in the case of the Sudan, in the case of this contract, a gentleman who, directly and indirectly, is going to be a beneficiary, as a contractor, whether his tender was lowest or highest or "middlest," that does not matter—one who in principle was to be the
beneficiary by a contract is himself the inspirer of the whole scheme of giving a nice little guarantee. We do not want your money we only want your guarantee! Day after day this slow degradation goes on. It is the demoralisation of public institutions which has brought down all nations. In the Sudan scheme the Government ought to have taken precautions that those who are connected with reporting on the scheme, recommending it, or having anything to do with it, had no connection with the profits. The Government has failed to see to that. Why did the enterprising private enterprise suddenly collapse in its spirit of enterprise, and make it necessary for us to sit here since Eleven o'clock? Why did not the Government call on their favourite cry of "private enterprise"? Did the Government make an attempt in the easy style of Governmental parliamentary attempts of asking their friends what their wishes and desires were in this matter? Were they told by private enterprise that it saw a great future in it and a great risk, and that it would be clever to shift the risk on to the taxpayer who is generally a mug. That part requires to be explained by the Government, not only explicitly, but even candidly, and having no regard to any secrecy between any negotiators and themselves.
This House has a right to know the nature of any consultations, and the persons with whom those consultations were carried on. If no consultations took place, then the supporters of the Government are bound in duty to tell their constituents, now that the General Election is over and the votes have been secured, that they forgot to go to the private enterprisers. There must be something in it. Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, so far as I am aware, is either by education or association a cotton expert. I do not believe that if a bale of Sudanese cotton were placed in the hands of either of those Gentlemen they would be able to say it was Sudanese cotton, or a piece of wool or anything else. I do not believe either of them would be able to test the long staple or short staple article. I do not, therefore, believe that the whole scheme originated in their heads. They told us there was a deputa-
tion, but that was last year. They are a new Government, and they tell us that, by some divine inspiration, not financial investigation, they came to the conclusion that long staple cotton was grown in the Sudan. Never mind about the methods of growing it, unemployment in Lancashire is going to be less. But the Government cannot make us accept such a doctrine unless they take us into their confidence and tell us the full psychological evolution.
We have heard of a deputation last year, and we see suddenly in this Session a Bill. We see two different and separate things in front of us. We have a very incomplete and undigested Bill about fine staple cotton in the Sudan, but without any information or any explanation. We heard of the deputation, but how the present occupants of office took up suddenly, in the midst of the difficulties of the Irish Constitution, this question of Sudanese cotton, and what experts they consulted in the matter I hardly know. What promise did they get from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and from the Plymouth private enterprises as to how much money they were prepared to put in. There are schemes put forward by the public, by private companies and corporations, and these private companies and corporations came to Parliament to ask for sanction, they apply for guarantees, and for security of interest, but nothing of that sort seems to have happened in the case of Sudanese cotton. We have not heard to-day that the private enterprisers of Britain are so dead that they are not able to stump up 3½ millions. We have not heard yet that the right hon. Members who support the Government, and who only last week were burning with zeal about the agriculturists and farmers, have undertaken to take some of the unemployed farmers of this country and send them to Sudan. We have not heard from the Government that the present unemployment in Lancashire has been due to a want of long staple cotton and the market for the yarn made out of the long staple cotton. We have heard from the Government, only a week ago, that stocks of cotton yarn made out of long staple are still lying in the warehouses of Manchester, Birkenhead and Liverpool. What do you want a further 70,000 bales of long staple cotton for if you have not been able to spin that which you have,
and the cotton you did spin you are not willing to sell because you do not get your pound of flesh? How the Government, as the impartial arbiter between the workers and the financiers, between the State and private enterprise, suddenly came to this conclusion will remain a miracle and a mystery unless they explain it more fully than they have done. It may be a miracle and a mystery to their friends, but it shall not be so to their opponents. When we saw the mere whispers of this Bill in the air, when we heard the gentle hints given to us to-night by the Prime Minister that it was something about which the least said the soonest mended, and that we should sit up after eleven, the whole cat jumped out of the bag at once. Two issues spring out of the Sudanese cotton. Number one issue is that the Government has been made to think about this scheme, and the second is that either they are unable to explain the details of the business or they thought it was a matter about which a long talk must not be permitted and that it might be got through in half an hour. But as I have said, this House is entirely a new House. In this House you have not only human ears, but you have an intellectual microscope, and those little invisible germs—I do not mean the members of the Opposition—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must approach the question of this loan.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The germs are now becoming visible in their whole alarming view to the public gaze. I submit, that the whole idea underlying this Sudan scheme and to push this Bill through at this time, when we were least expecting to push it through, is to establish, what every Government generally desires to do, a precedent and a pledge, so that throughout the coming Sessions this little nest will come up. I still sub-

mit that the scheme as propounded by the Government is a scheme barren of the fundamental elements of justice. The scheme is based upon one fact, as if it was a truism, that it is going to produce 70,000 bales of long-staple cotton.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to repeat the same argument.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am submitting, Mr. Hope, that from parallel examples of similar hopefulness of the growing of long-staple cotton in other parts of the world, thousands of pounds have been wasted, and the cotton that has been ultimately grown has been neither long-staple or short-staple.

Mr. BALDWIN: rose in Ms place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. SHINWELL: (seated and covered): I submit that the proposal contained in the Chancellor's submission to the Committee is incompetent, in virtue of the Statute. Section 1 of the Statute reads as follows:
Provided that the application of the loan in such manner is calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom.
Since there is no reference to the promotion of employment in the United Kingdom in the proposal, I submit that it is incompetent.

The CHAIRMAN: It is a question of the Division taking place—that the Question be now put. It is not relative to the Resolution.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes 88.

Division No. 17.]
AYES.
[4.0 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Brass, Captain W.
Clayton, C. C.


Amery Bt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brassey. Sir Leonard
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Brown, Major D, C. (Hexham)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bruford, R.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bruton, Sir James
Davles, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davles, Thomas (Cirencester)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)


Berry, Sir George
Butt, Sir Alfred
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring


Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Ednam, Viscount


Blundell, F. N.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Elveden, viscount
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lamb, J. Q.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Eyres-Monsell. Com. Bolton M.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir p.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lorimer, H. D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Lougher, L.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lumley, L. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sandon, Lord


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Shepperson, E. w.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Singleton, j. E.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.O'by)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Halstead, Major D.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nail, Major Joseph
Stanley, Lord


Harrison, F. C.
Nesbitt, J. c.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Newman, Sir R, H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murrey Fraser


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sutcliffe, T.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Titchfield, Marquess of


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Paget, T. G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Tubbs, S. W.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Penny, Frederick George
Wallace, Captain E.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wells, S. R.


Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, Basil E.
Wheler, Col. Granville C, H.


Hohler, Gerald Fltzroy
Phllipson, H. H.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pielou, D. P.
Whitla, Sir William


Hopkins, John W. w.
Privett, F. J.
Windsor, Viscount


Houfton, John Plowright
Raine, W.
Wlnterton, Earl


Howard-Bury, Lieut. Col. C. K.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wise, Frederick


Hudson, Capt. A,
Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Renter. J. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)



Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Roberts. Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, w.)
Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Barnston.


Kennedy, Captain M. s. Nigel
Roundell, Colonel R. F.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Riley. Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hill, A.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Batey, Joseph
Hodge, Lieut.-Coi. J. P. (Preston)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Both well)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hogge, James Myles
Saklatvala S


Bonwick, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buckle, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simpson, J. Hope


Burgess, S.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Sinclair, Sir A


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford. East)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Collison. Levi
Lawson, John James
Tout, W. J.


Darbishire, C. W.
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davles, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lylc-Samuel, Alexander
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Dudgeon, Major c. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Westwood. J.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Maxton, James
Wheatley, J.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Muir, John W.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, w.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murray, R. (Renfrew. Western)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Nichol, Robert
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)



Hartshorn, Vernon
Phillipps, Vivian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hastings, Patrick
Pringle, W. M. R.
Mr. Amman and Mr. Morgan Jones.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, in paragraph (e), to leave out the words "such bonds," and to insert instead thereof the words "securities to be issued by the Treasury."

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Does this rule out any general discussion on any other part of the Resolution I What I mean is that your title reads "Austrian Loan and Sudan." I want to raise something on the first part.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does it rule out my point of Order '.

This CHAIRMAN: It is too late now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that Government securities are to be issued by the Treasury.

Mr. BALDWIN: The words are, "Government securities to be issued by the Treasury."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are "bonds" to be left out?

Mr. BALDWIN: They take the place of those bonds.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They are Government securities. I think we should have some word of explanation making it clearer.

Mr. PRINGLE: I do not know the purpose of bringing paragraph (c) into agreement with the second heading of paragraph (b). In that second heading we have the words
To guarantee the payment of the principal of and the interest on any securities hereafter issued by the Austrian Government.
Now, apparently, an Amendment is proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to insert "securities to be issued by the British Treasury." In the former it is securities to be issued by the Austrian Government.

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member will remember that I said that under paragraph (iii) it would be necessary for each of the contracting parties to deposit collateral securities—bonds or some other form of security—which would be held by the Board of Control, and that these
would not add to the amount we guaranteed. They are merely collateral, and this paragraph refers to such securities, and not to the original bonds or loan of such securities as may be deposited.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any precedent for double bonds being issued?

Mr. BALDWIN: There is no precedent, I understand, but this is the first example of such an international scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Original Question, as amended, proposed.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Committee has been discussing at great length matters concerning Austria, the Sudan and so on, but I understood that this Bill was a Bill to provide trade facilities in order to permit employment within the United Kingdom, and that the major part of the money was guarantees for that purpose. I noticed that the Government issued White Papers at various stages while the previous guarantees were in vogue, and I thought we might have been told the number of applications received and rejected, and how much of this money has actually been spent. I know there are guarantees, and I am told that the guarantees are never spent. But it appears as if something over £20,000,000 has been used, for you have guaranteed the expenditure of something over £20,000,000. Looking through these papers it is extremely difficult to discover whether any of it has been spent. They tell me that we are going to do certain things, but there is no evidence in the papers that the works have been started. It is an injustice to the unemployed to flaunt great figures before them, as was done on Friday last, as to the great sums allocated to alleviate their condition, all the time knowing that a very large amount of that money is not going to be spent at all. What I would like to ask someone on the Treasury Bench, before the Debate closes, is that we may know how much money has been spent on work within the United Kingdom during the past year, and also if they can tell us how many schemes have been submitted to them and have been approved? I ask that for several reasons.
I happen to know one scheme which was rejected and may come up again. It was
as a scheme by a utility society. Private enterprise, so that there is no question of Socialism. It is a society formed to create the Eltham Garden Suburb. This was a scheme which would ultimately provide many thousand houses and shops in the district of Eltham, and it was to be so conducted that in many cases ex-service men would not only have been provided with homes but also provided with employment as it was proposed, so far as possible, to take the joinery work and what other work could be obtained from the Lord Roberts' workshops. Now the sum which was asked from this Committee was £130,000, or a guarantee rather, jn order to start the scheme. The scheme would have run into something over £1,000,000. They wanted £130,000 to start, because that would be the only amount required as they hoped to sell the houses, or let them, as completed, and so raise money to carry on. I would have thought that was just the sort of scheme to provide work within the United Kingdom. I cannot understand why a scheme of that kind was not given support. I would also like to raise the broader question of whether it was not possible to do more under this Guarantee Bill, or those other measures of guarantee, to enable other societies in other parts of the country to put up houses. It seems to me that the Government has gone out of its way to offer to provide money or guarantees for concerns that can raise money without their guarantees. What does the Underground Railway want with their guarantee? They can raise as much money as they want. It seems to me that it only simply wanted a person to put that in the Bill to help the unemployed. The Underground Railway Company, and several others, are quite capable of raising their money, and also the work they are going to do is work that would have had to be done under any circumstances. I hope before the Debate closes we shall have an answer. The South Eastern and Chatham Company are down for £6,000.000. That was done in the early part of this year, and no turf has yet born cut to employ that £6,000,000. What I complain about is that these figures are thrown at the public and put out with great headlines in the newspapers as if
work was being found for the unemployed, and the Government are finding the money. You are only finding a guarantee, and the work is not started.

Mr. WALLHEAD: With all due respect to hon. Members who displayed some hilarity a moment or two ago when the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) was speaking with reference to the question of private enterprise, I say that to come along at this hour and ask for guarantees for huge loans is to my mind something in the nature of a scandal. My mind goes back to the raising of loans during the War and the question of taxes. I remember when the Excess Profits Tax was fixed first at 60 per cent, and afterwards at 80 per cent., leaving in the first case 40 per cent. and in the second case 20 per cent, in the. hands of the manufacturers and merchant class generally, and the reason given for leaving that amount in their hands was that, when the lean years came after the War, they would have a resarve fund set aside for meeting dilapidations and difficulties that would arise industrially. That was the reason why it was given. Instead of that, not only has the money been pocketed, but at the present moment we are so busy handing back the money the nation had received that we were told the other day that we really had paid back more than had been received in Excess Profits Duty. It does seem to me now to be rather an excess to ask for a Government guaranteed loan.
I want to refer to the question of raising loans for cotton growing. A day or two ago I listened to Members on the opposite benches pleading that we should do something from the Government point of view with regard to subsidising agencies in Brazil to encourage cotton growing in that country. We were told it is an eminently suitable- country for growing long-staple cotton, and we were told that if the Government would only build some more palatial consulates and send out officials of a superior type to those districts, it might be expected that there would be some great developments in Brazil that might lead to production of long-staple cotton. It seems to me we are rather in danger of overdoing this cotton business. [Laughter.] I think it is a very serious
question, because I should not like the cotton-growers to be in the position the rubber-growers find themselves in. The rubber-growers have been approaching the Government to use their influence to keep down rubber production, to keep it dear and make it costly to all concerned. If we go on with this exploitation of various areas, we shall have the same thing from the point of view of the cotton-growers, and the Government will be asked to use its influence to keep up the1 price of cotton, Already in the Nile Valley there is cotton production, and I would like to know from hon. Members opposite who are interested in this cotton-growing industry whether it is not a fact that those areas are exhausted, having been exploited to a degree that is decreasing the output because of the exhaustion of the soil which is not being treated adequately, and the crop and output is running down. If that is the case—and I am told on very good authority that it is so—then it is a scandal to come to this House for money to exploit another region simply because private enterprise in the cotton trade has exhausted the areas already planted. That is a mattr we should get some enlightenment on. I can quite understand that you can make out a very good case for the loaning of monies for trade facilities or building of pumps and irrigation works and what-not in the Nile Valley. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) told us in debate that he knew of lots of money lying idle waiting for investment if only the opportunity offered. If there is money waiting for investment it should be forthcoming without being guaranteed by this House and the Treasury. These are questions well worthy of some little discussion, and I think we should know a little more than we know about them at the present time.

Mr. BARNES: I should like to develop a point which I introduced earlier in the evening as to whether this expenditure of 25 million pounds is the best way of relieving unemployment at the present moment. I think these proposals! are subject to criticism, from the point of view that if any of this money is called for from the taxpayers the community gets nothing in return. Twenty-five million pounds is being used for the purpose of safeguarding the capital mainly of railway
companies and other businesses which are eligible under the Government scheme. On the Other hand, I think it should be the central principle of the finance of this House, in using public funds for tht1 purpose of relieving unemployment, of ensuring as far as possible that the community shall have some asset as a result of the expenditure. The Government has not given the Committee any argument to the effect that, if this money is not forthcoming, this work on the part of the railway companies or other businesses would not proceed. It is a well-known fact that during the post four years companies, owning to the uncertainty of prices generally, have not embarked upon the capital expenditure for renewals and replacements which they would have done in the ordinary course of business. Now prices are more stable, and they are compelled to take action owing to the natural wear and tear of their plant and machinery. They want, however, the guarantee of State funds. I consider that is fundamentally wrong as a principle to relieve unemployment. I do not consider that, if this guarantee was not forthcoming, railway companies and other firms would not proceed with their work, and this would secure just as much relief of unemployment as the Government scheme proposes to do. On the other hand, I claim that there are many public utility schemes which could be carried out if the Government would approach local authorities; schemes which would not only provide work for the relief of unemployment or be for the benefit of one section of industry, but would improve the commercial organisation of the whole country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate the fact that transport in industry to-day is one of the most costly factors in the price of commodities. Take, for instance, the entrance to London from the docks; you find immense congestion of traffic.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Gentleman is suggesting alternative schemes; he would not be in order in doing so.

Mr. BARNES: What I am endeavouring to suggest is that we are being asked to vote away the taxpayers' money, and surely it is desirable to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to other means for the relief of unemployment which might be more profitable
to the State, and more effective for the purpose for which the expenditure is being undertaken. I do not intend to vote against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I was endeavouring to show that this is not the wisest way of spending the nation's funds, and not the most effective way of relieving unemployment. The point I was developing was that a similar expenditure of funds, carried out under reasonable guarantees through local authorities, would improve the efficiency of the machinery of commerce, and would benefit not only a group of traders, but the whole of the trading interests of the country. When one passes through London and realises the enormous losses to the business and commerce of London by the congestion of the streets, I submit that a well-organised scheme of arterial road development would improve business in every respect. My argument can beet be illustrated by giving an example. In the Aldwych and Southampton Row an improvement carried through some years ago has resulted in one of the most important thoroughfares in the Metropolis, and I believe that the revenue which the London County Council derives from ground rent;; has more than paid the interest on capital expenditure.
The whole point is that the people of London who made that expenditure have a distinct asset, and the results of the improvement go back to the people of London. There are many slum areas to be removed, and the improvement of many of our suburban areas would be an asset not only to the mental and physical standard of the people, but to the capital value of the districts. The framing of schemes on the lines I am suggesting would be public utility schemes and would not bolster up private capitalism, which this particular trade guarantee scheme does. In the East of London we have the Wanstead Flats, and great barren areas. Why should not these be developed for social and recreational purposes? While providing employment for the unemployed, why should not the House, in spending national funds, endeavour to direct that expenditure along lines that would improve the standard of life and the capacity for enjoyment of the millions of people in the district. How many Members opposite realise that in the East End of London there are
hundreds of thousands of people who never get the opportunity to develop the capacity for enjoyment and the capacity for enjoying games' The expenditure of public funds along these lines need not necessarily mean expenditure with no revenue in return, if organised efficiently and run in conjunction with the local authorities. We could get more relief for unemployment by schemes of that description. A further principle would be safeguarded, namely, the expenditure of national funds would provide ultimately a communal asset retained by the people at large. Therefore, I do wish again, in my closing remarks, to exphasise the fact that in any further consideration of this relief of unemployment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government should bear in mind that public funds used for the purpose of bolstering private enterprises is not money expended to assist the community as a whole.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): The hon. Member who has just spoken has rather forgotten that this is only one of several schemes for dealing with unemployment, and that several of the points which ho has raised are already covered by other schemes. There is that of Lord St. Davids Committee, under which a large amount of money has been set aside for exactly those undertakings by public authorities to which he has referred. As to roads, there is a large sum set aside out of the Road Fund, which was enlarged upon in the Unemployment Debate. Moreover, this Act is open to the local authorities just as much as to a public company, or to anyone else. [Ax HON. MEMBER: "Would it be for Housing?"] I have not got the precise words o' the Act, but any public body or public company may apply. As a matter of fact, under schemes which I think have already been authorised, several public authorities have applied: for instance, the Lee Conservancy Board. A guarantee was given them, but whether they are. proceeding with the work. I do nor know.

Mr. MARCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Port of London Authority is in the scheme for the improvement of docks?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Port of London Authority, most certainly, can come within the scheme, but each local authority has to make its own application.
The question is put: Is this the best way of relieving unemployment? I do not think really the proposal is seriously challenged from the other side. I should not expect it to be, because when we introduced this Bill a year ago it was most warmly welcomed by the Labour party as a very genuine and effective contribution. I think it is quite one of the best ways of relieving unemployment you can have, because it sets going schemes which are in themselves economic schemes, which ought to be carried out, which would be carried out, and it anticipates the date on which they are brought into effect. There are schemes which give immediate employment. There are schemes which are already of a producing character and which lead to further development-Let me take one example—the Underground Railway extension. That scheme means the employment of a very large number of men upon excavation and constructional work and it means contracts placed all over the country for rails, rolling stock, etc. It also happens to be a new area and that leads to houses being built for that area, increasing as it does the travelling facilities for those who move out. An enormous proportion of that goes in wages. The hon. Member was really wrong when he said that these kinds of work would have been done without Government guarantee. Experience shows that a large number of undertakings were held back because they could not raise money sufficiently cheaply.

Mr. BARNES: My assumption was that these particular developments were being held back because of the uncertainty of prices. Now that prices are stabilised, they would come into operation.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I was addressing my remarks more particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). As a matter of fact, schemes were being held up because of high prices. If you could give a Government guarantee, it made the raising of money cheaper than it would have been in the open market and the result of that was that a company, by getting money cheaper, was able to incur rather greater expenditure than it would have incurred in the ordinary course of events. There is, I think, no risk to the State, and the work would
not have been put in hand but for the Government guarantee. It was quite open to public utility societies or to a local authority to ask for a guarantee of a loan for a housing scheme, and I should hope that building companies would go forward. But I should say this. The House insisted, when this Bill was before it previously—and I think rightly —the House pressed very strongly that in dealing with these schemes the Committee should be left absolutely free and unfettered to test the finances of the schemes on their merit. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that they should have a free hand, and no doubt my right hon. Friend would wish to adhere to that. Some of the schemes on which guarantees have been given have held fire for a time. Others proceeded immediately the guarantee was given. The Committee have had as their first consideration that they would give preference to schemes which would go ahead immediately. The first question asked, I understand, is, "If you get a guarantee, are you prepared to proceed immediately with the scheme," and the, second consideration is that all materials and plant required should be purchased in this country. In these circumstances, I think it is very practicable.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would it be possible to give us a White. Paper stating what number of applications have been made, what number have been accepted, and how many men have been found employment during the period? In this very important matter these facts should be got out.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I understand that 22½ millions, roughly, has been sanctioned. I cannot say the number of schemes that have been turned down, because a number of quite impossible schemes would always be put forward to a Committee like this. I know the difficulties with the electrical schemes, but I can assure hon. Members that anything I can do to help them forward I will certainly do. An estimate was made that these schemes on the Underground Railway were likely to employ about 20,000 men and I have been given an estimate— it must be a very rough one—that these schemes directly and indirectly employed something like 100,000 men. But this does not give a complete' picture, because you
have to take, in addition, all the men employed in works such as making bridges, rails and so on. But the general estimate is given to me as 100,000 men.

Mr. LANSBURY: The greater part of the schemes are not started yet. What I want to get at is what is going on now. Perhaps ultimately you will give work to these men, but what are we doing just now?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am trying to get the whole of the 100,000 to work as quickly as we can.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I see there is an item down of £120,000 to a colliery company to build houses for workers. I think it is very improper to give money to any colliery company which should be responsible for the housing of its own workers. There was a very good principle laid down by the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond), the Minister of Health in the last Parliament, that where persons are going into these schemes they should supply buildings for their men. However, this precedent has been established, and money has been guaranteed to a colliery company to supply houses for the working people. That being the case, I would like to know very much whether the Government has considered extending the Trade Facilities Scheme to housing purposes, and, in particular, whether the decent, law-abiding citizens can apply for a guarantee if he wants to build his own house. Why should not a man who is in regular employment, and who can get a house, apply for a guarantee with which he might go to a building society and get a house built. The house would act as a security, and it would finally become his own property. I believe such a scheme might do something to start house building again. There are plenty of small builders who would be willing to do the work for them. I want also to ask a question about a very peculiar item in White Paper 62, if I may draw the attention of the Chancellor to this, namely, the guarantee of an amount of no less than £600,000 to Beardmore and Company, of all people, one of the wealthiest shipping companies in the world, to complete one vessel for the Societa Anomina per Azione Lloyd Sabaudo, Is it a British company or a South American company? Why should Beardmore's have this guarantee for a ship I Up and down the country, in ship-
building centres, there were recently scores of ships in various stages of completion where the original people who ordered them could not guarantee to pay for them. They were left on the builder's hands, and the shipbuilding yards have lost tremendously in consequence. Why was Beardmore's picked out for one vessel and given this enormous guarantee I If the owners, the society with the unpronounceable name, could not pay for a ship, it was not a very good venture to guarantee the money. I went through the other items very carefully, and with the exception of the colliery company the cases in which money was guaranteed seem to have been very fair ones and very proper, and I must say that the Committee which is dealing with these cases., from all I hear, has done its work extremely well. But that has nothing to do with the Government.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: What is the position with regard to the Overseas Trade credit facilities? How does the old account stand? Are there any bad debts outstanding? As I understand it, this fund is to provide for export credits if they cannot got the facilities at the banks.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not quite sure if this is strictly within the purview of this Debate. All we ask to do to-night is to make the general credit date from the time the actual guarantee is given. The general system under which the export credits department proceeds is this: In all cases that are approved by the Advisory Committee a premium is charged, the premium varying in every transaction. I am hopeful that the premium fund may be able to see us through, but it is obviously not possible to give figures with certainty where we have about 16 millions of credit outstanding. We may tell within about three or four years what the total may be.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Did I understand you to say you gave them four years' credit?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, in some cases four years' credit has been given.

5.0 A.M.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can any answer be given about the point I raised about the ship and the other point about building houses; will it be explained whether a responsible citizen can borrow money to build a house?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think it would be practicable for the Committee to deal with individual applications by individual men for small loans. It would not be practicable within the terms of the Act. I am rather surprised that, when, unemployment is so bad in the shipbuilding trade, it is a matter of regret that this money has been guaranteed for this ship.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It is not a question of regret. I was asking for information. As that contract has been secured and carried through, is it open for any shipbuilding firm to come forward, as I presume Messrs. Beardmore did, with a proposition which the committee thought was sound?

Resolved,
That it is expedient—

(a) to amend Section one of The Trade Facilities Act, 1921–

(i) by increasing to fifty million pounds the limit on the agro-gate capital amount of the loans the principal or interest of which may be guaranteed thereunder; and
(ii) by extending by one year the period within which guarantees may be given thereunder; and
(iii) by providing for the charging of fees in connection with matters arising thereunder;
(b) to authorise the Treasury—

(i) to guarantee to the extent set out in Protocol No, II, signed at Geneva on the 4th day of October, 1922, and the Annexes thereto, a loan to be raised by the Austrian Government of such an amount as, after payment of the expenses of issue, will produce the equivalent of a sum not exceeding six hundred and fifty million gold crowns; and
(ii) to guarantee the payment of the principal of and the interest on any securities hereafter
1470
issued by the Austrian Government which are to be repayable out of the proceeds of the loan aforesaid; and
(iii) to make an issue of securities for the purpose of rendering more readily effective any guarantee which may be given by the Treasury as aforesaid and to provide for the redemption of any such securities;
(c)to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, any loan raised by the Government of the Soudan for, or in connection with, works for the purpose of irrigating the Gezirch Plain not exceeding in the aggregate an amount sufficient to raise three million five hundred thousand pounds;
(d) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 and 1921, by providing that for the purposes of the provisions of these Acts relating to the period within which the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the giving of guarantees in connection with export transactions may be exercised, the date on which the Board enter into an agreement to give guarantees shall be treated as the date on which the guarantees are given;
(e) to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantees as aforesaid or required for meeting the principal of, or the interest on, any securities to be issued by the Treasury, as aforesaid, and to provide for the laying before Parliament of statements and accounts with respect to the matters aforesaid.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Tuesday)."

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes after Five o'clock a.m.